Reprinted

in 2007 by Concordia Publishing House

Copyright © 1971 Concordia Publishing

House 3558 S. Jefferson Ave., St. Louis, MO 63118–3968

1–800–325–3040 • www.cph.org
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or

otherwise, without the prior written permission of Concordia Publishing

House.

Manufactured in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Chemnitz, Martin, 1522–1586

[Examen Concilii Tridentini. English]

Examination of the Council of Trent/Martin Chemnitz; translated by Fred

Kramer.

p. cm. — (Chemnitz’s works; v. 1)

Originally published: St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Pub. House, 1971.

Includes index.

ISBN-13: 978–0-7586–1540–4 (v. 1)

1. Council of Trent (1545–1563) 2. Catholic Church—Doctrines—Early

works to 1800. 3. Lutheran

Church—Doctrines—Early works to 1800. I. Title. II. Series.

BX8301545.C413 2007

262’.52—dc22

2007028944

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07
CONTENTS

Foreword

Translator’s Preface

Biographical Sketch of Martin Chemnitz

Preface

FIRST TOPIC

CONCERNING THE SACRED SCRIPTURES

Section I Concerning Holy Scripture

Section II Concerning the Origin, Reason for, and Use of, New Testament
Scripture

Section III Concerning the Similarity and Affinity of the Traditions of the
Papalists with

Those of the Pharisees and of the Talmud

Section IV Concerning the New Testament Scripture

Article I Concerning the Writings of the Evangelists

Article II Concerning the Writings and Epistles of the Apostles

Section V Testimonies of the Ancient Church Concerning the Scriptures

Section VI Concerning the Canonical Books, or the Canonical Scripture

Section VII Concerning the Version, or Translation, of Scripture into Other

Languages

Section VIII Concerning the Interpretation of the Scripture

SECOND TOPIC

CONCERNING TRADITIONS

Section I The First Kind of Traditions

Section II The Second Kind of Traditions

Section III The Third Kind of Traditions

Section IV The Fourth Kind of Traditions

Section V The Fifth Kind of Traditions

Section VI The Sixth Kind of Traditions

Section VII The Seventh Kind of Traditions

Section VIII The Eighth Kind of Traditions

THIRD TOPIC

CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN

Section I The Opinion of the Papalists Concerning Original Sin

Section II The Teaching of Scripture About Original Sin

Section III The Arguments of the Opponent

FOURTH TOPIC

CONCERNING THE REMNANTS OF ORIGINAL SIN AFTER

BAPTISM; OR

CONCERNING EVIL DESIRE (CONCUPISCENCE) WHICH REMAINS

IN THE

BAPTIZED, OR REGENERATE, IN THIS LIFE

Section I The Point at Issue and the Bases

Section II The Council of Trent on Concupiscence

Section III Concerning the Word “Sin”

Section IV The Understanding of Concupiscence on the Part of the Ancients

Section V Arguments of the Papalists

FIFTH TOPIC

WHETHER THE BLESSED VIRGIN WAS CONCEIVED WITHOUT

ORIGINAL SIN

SIXTH TOPIC

CONCERNING THE WORKS OF UNBELIEVERS, OR OF THE

UNREGENERATE

Section I The Opinion of Andrada About the Works of Unbelievers

Section II The Statements of Scripture Concerning the Works of

Unbelievers

Section III Arguments of the Opponents

SEVENTH TOPIC

CONCERNING FREE WILL

Section I Various Related Questions Concerning Free Will

Article II The Chief Point at Issue in the Controversy Concerning Free Will

Section II The Opinion of the Council of Trent Concerning Free Will,

According to the

Interpretation of Andrada
Section III The Teaching of Scripture Concerning Free Will

Section IV Augustine’s Teaching Concerning Free Will, and How Andrada

Distorts It

Section V How Deceitfully the Tridentine Decrees Concerning Free Will

Are Fashioned

EIGHTH TOPIC

CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION

Section I

Article I The True Issue in the Topic Concerning Justification

Article II Concerning the Term “Justification”

Article III From Which Things Scripture Takes Away the Justification of
Man to Life

Eternal

Article IV How Scripture Teaches that a Man Is Justified Before God to Life
Eternal

Article V The Term “Grace”

Article VI The Adverb “Gratis”

Article VII What That Righteousness Is Which We Plead Against the

Judgment of God

in Justification

Section II The Testimonies of the Ancients Concerning Justification

Section III The Teaching of the Council of Trent Concerning Justification

Section IV The Arguments of Andrada

Section V Concerning the Growth of Justification After It Has Been

Received

NINTH TOPIC

CONCERNING FAITH

Section I Concerning Preparation for Justification

Section II What Truly and Properly Justifying Faith Is, and in What Sense
Scripture Wants

to Have It Understood When It Declares that the Ungodly Is Justified by

Faith

Section III Whether the True Justifying Faith Is Confidence or Uncertainty

with Respect to

the Remission of Sins

TENTH TOPIC

CONCERNING GOOD WORKS

The First Question:

Whether Good Works Are to Be Done

The Second Question:

What the Good Works Arc in Which God Wants the Regenerate to Practice
Obedience

The Third Question:

Whether the Good Works of the Regenerate in This Life Are So Perfect that
They Fully,
Abundantly, and Perfectly Satisfy the Divine Law

The Fourth Question:

Concerning the Rewards and Merits of Good Works

Subject Index

Scripture Text Index

FOREWORD

In presenting Part I of Chemnitz’ Examen Concilii Tridentini to the

theological world in an English translation, The Committee for Research of
The Commission on Church Literature of The

Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod is attempting to fill a need long felt in

the theological world.

When this great Lutheran classic appeared in print during the years 1565–
1573, it was eagerly

hailed within Protestantism, and translations into other languages were at

once undertaken.

Georg Nigrinus translated all four parts of the Examen into German,
publishing his work at Frankfurt am/M in 1576. By 1582 an English
translation of the section on traditions was published

in London by Thomas Purfoot and William Pounsonbee under the title: A

Discouverie and batterie

of the great Fort of unwritten Traditions: otherwise an examination of the

Counsell of Trent touching the decree of traditions. Done by Martinus
Chemnitz in Latine, and translated into English by R. U. The article on
Martin Chemnitz in Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1950), says of Chemnitz’
Examen: “… than which no book of the period was more damaging to
Roman claims. It ran through numerous
editions and was translated into German and French; a modern edition was
brought out by Preuss

(Berlin, 1861).”

The modern German encyclopedia of religious knowledge, Die Religion in

Geschichte und

Gegenwart, Vol. I (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1957), says

under “Chemnitz, Martin”:

“Chemnitz hat … das Verdienst, dass er auf die jesuitische Propaganda in

Deutschland

aufmerksam geworden und ihr entgegengetreten ist. Die reife Frucht

verschiedener Kontroversen

… wurde dann das Examen Concilii Tridentini (1565–73), eine würdige und
kenntnisreiche

Darstellung und Kritik der tridentinischen Dekrete, in der vor allem das
protestantische

Schriftprinzip klar herausgearbeitet ist.”

Not only Protestants recognize Chemnitz’ Examination of the Canons and

Decrees of the

Council of Trent as a monumental work. The Roman Catholic Lexikon für

Theologie und Kirche, Vol. II (Freiburg: Herder, 1958), states under
“Chemnitz, Martin”: “Chemnitz wirkte

jahrhundertelang durch seine berühmte Polemik gegen das Tridentinum auf

die protestantische

Kontroverse gegen die katholische Kirche; legte darin aber auch positiv das
evangelische

Glaubensverständnis dar.”
Finally, the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. III (New York: McGraw-Hill,
1967), published with the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur, says under
“Chemnitz, Martin”: “His four-volume, scholarly analysis of Trent’s
decisions, based on Scripture, the fathers, and the history of Catholic

dogma, enhanced his reputation far beyond Germany and elicited Jesuit
respect for a formidable opponent and scholar.”

In spite of all the praise of Chemnitz’ work, however, this great treatise is
applauded more than

read. The reasons are obvious. With the passing of Latin as the language of
scholars, the Examen

becomes a closed book to all but a few people. The German translation of
Nigrinus, excellent for

its time, is not available to the general German reading public today, both
because of the scarcity of

copies and the antiquated German. An effort was made by R. Bendixen in

1884 to make the

Examen available to the modern German reader. He condensed the four

volumes into a handy one-

volume work published in Leipzig by Doerffling and Franke. Such a

condensation does not,

however, satisfy the scholarly reader.

A group of Lutheran pastors in America, headed by the Rev. C. A. Frank,

translated the section on Scripture and Tradition into German and published
it in 1875 in St. Louis through the Verlag L.

Volkening. But the remainder of the massive Examen was not translated.

Under these circumstances, The Committee for Research of The Lutheran

Church — Missouri
Synod readily undertook the translation of the Examen into English when
Dr. Arthur Carl Piepkorn

of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, a well-known authority in the field of

Lutheran Orthodoxy,

approached the committee to support the project in 1956. Subsequently the

committee engaged Dr.

Piepkorn to translate and edit the proposed volume and assigned Dr.
Lorman Petersen of the

committee the task of implementing the project. At that time the plan was to
translate those sections of the Examen which were most representative of
Chemnitz’ greatness and at the same time most relevant to the theological
situation today and to summarize the remaining sections.

Since the Council of Trent, which was first convened in 1545, completed its
work in December 1563 and since Chemnitz labored on his Examen
between 1565 and 1573, it was hoped that the English translation would be
a 400th-anniversary gift to the theological world.

The committee then learned that Dr. Henry Hassold, a Lutheran pastor of
Adelaide, South

Australia, had recently completed an English translation of the Examen, all

handwritten, a monumental task of 30 years, 1933–1963. The Committee
for Research immediately initiated

negotiations with Dr. Hassold and purchased the manuscript outright to be

used for consultative and comparison purposes in producing the proposed
translation. When asked why he undertook the

translation of such an imposing volume (1,840 Latin columns of about 450

words each), Dr.

Hassold answered, “I translated Chemnitz’ work for the same reason that
Dr. Chemnitz wrote it in
the first place. There is a special need for it in these times, not only by the
Protestant but also by

the Catholic church leaders and members.”

After some preliminary work on the Chemnitz project, Dr. Piepkorn

concluded that his manifold

duties would not permit him to continue the work. The committee
thereupon engaged Dr. Fred

Kramer, Latin scholar and professor of systematic theology at Concordia

Seminary, Springfield,

Illinois, to assume the work of translating the Examen. It was then decided
to translate the entire work and publish it in consecutive volumes. Dr.
Kramer completed the translation of the initial volume in 1968. It represents
the first of the four parts of Chemnitz’ enormous work, containing the
following subjects: Sacred Scripture, Traditions, Original Sin, Free Will,
Justification, and Good Works. These, as every theologian will recognize,
are some of the basic topics of Christian

theology.

This translation may also be termed something of a pioneering effort. In

translating Luther, for

example, one is able to stand on the shoulders of generations of Luther

scholars. In the case of Chemnitz basic materials and tools are lacking —
there are few if any monographic studies of the

Examen, no lexicon, no critical edition, no grammars, not even indexes of

citations, Bible texts, and subject matter. The translator was compelled to
do his own spadework and anguish over many

details and unanswered questions in clearing the path toward a translation in

good English.
The purpose of Kramer’s translation is not only to furnish primary source
materials of Lutheran

Orthodoxy in English but to give the English-speaking world, and

Lutheranism in particular, the words and thoughts of a noted Christian
scholar who possessed keen insight into the Scriptures that

all may have the means for a better understanding of Lutheran Orthodoxy
today. The Examen may

be considered a thorough exposition of both Lutheran and Catholic doctrine

during the 16th

century.

Our age is both an ecumenical age and an age of theological confusion. Into
this troubled sea the

calm, clear, Biblical voice of Martin Chemnitz, speaking on major topics of

Christian theology, drawing deeply from the sacred Scriptures and from the
best and purest of the church fathers, will

be welcomed not only by Lutheran pastors, theological students, and

interested laymen but, as in the 16th century, by many outside the Lutheran
Church, both Protestant and Roman Catholic.

At the 400th anniversary of the Examen and in view of the theological

dialog presently being carried on, The Committee for Research hopes that
the Examination of the Council of Trent will fill a gap in Lutheran
scholarship and that this first volume of the Examen in English may be
followed

by the remaining volumes of the four-part work at a future time.

The Committee for Research

The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE
When the undersigned was approached by Dr. Lorman Petersen of The
Committee for Research

of The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod to undertake the translation of

Martin Chemnitz’

Examen Concilii Tridentini, it had not been decided whether the committee
wished to publish a translation of the entire work or only major sections of
the work with abridgment of others. After

the undersigned, assured that he would be freed of teaching and

administrative duties in order to be

able to devote himself to the task, had agreed to serve as translator, he

examined the work and concluded that the church would be best served by
publication without abridgment of Part I of the

Examen, which treats with great thoroughness the topics of Scripture,

Tradition, Original Sin, Free Will, Justification, and Good Works. He
communicated his conviction to The Committee for

Research, and the committee concurred.

It was the translator’s hope that he might, as Hassold had done, work with
the text of the Preuss

edition (Berlin, 1861), particularly because this was based on the 1578
Frankfort edition of the Examen, the last edition which had been personally
supervised by Chemnitz himself. Preuss states

in his preface to the 1861 edition of the Examen that all editions which he
had examined were full of errors. Therefore he used, as the basis for his
edition, the Frankfort edition of 1578, which he

considered best.

The undersigned found, however, that the Preuss edition added new errors,
seemingly through
the carelessness of the typesetter and the proofreader. Therefore he turned
rather to the edition of

1578, which the library of Concordia Theological Seminary, Springfield,

Ill., was able to supply. In

addition he was able to secure the first edition of the Examen, bearing the
date of 1566, from the library of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo.,
which was used for comparison whenever textual

difficulties were encountered. This edition, however, as Chemnitz himself

admits, also abounds

with errors. Over three pages of “errata” are listed at the beginning of the
book, and the list is by

no means exhaustive.

The translator was thus compelled to work with a text that is often faulty.
The errors are, however, usually of the more insignificant kind that do not
affect the sense adversely.

More serious are certain errors which came to light in quotations from
church fathers. It was not

the translator’s task to check against the originals every quotation from
every source in the Examen, Part I. This would have consumed more time
than he had at his disposal. But every quotation that seemed defective was
checked against the original author, and a number of errors in

copying were discovered and corrected.

Furthermore, the references to the book and chapter from which Chemnitz
quotes are frequently

inaccurate. Where the translator was able to give the correct source, he did
so in a footnote.
Without doubt some incorrect references remain. These need not trouble the
general reader. The scholar will have the facilities to check any particular
quotation if he so desires.

In quoting, Chemnitz frequently omits sentences and even whole

paragraphs without indicating

that he has done so. Therefore a quotation of a few sentences in the Examen
may actually represent a page or more in the source quoted.

Chemnitz’ Scripture quotations are generally, though not always, according

to the Vulgate. He

always quotes only by chapter. To make the translation of Chemnitz more

usable, we have given

both chapter and verse and, wherever possible, have quoted according to the
Revised Standard

Version. Where this would have conflicted with Chemnitz’ use of the
passage, we have translated the text he used literally.

In order to make the translation more readable, Greek and Hebrew words
used by Chemnitz

were in some instances simply translated. In those instances where it

appeared imperative that the

foreign words be retained for the sake of understanding the author’s

argument, they appear in the

English text.

While The Committee for Research agreed that the Examen, Part I, should
appear unabridged,

the translator found it advantageous to omit certain constantly recurring

phrases in the interest of
readability. The omissions rarely constitute more than a phrase at a time.
Such omissions are indicated by ellipsis marks.

The numbered paragraphing, indicated in the later Latin editions of the

Examen, was found very

helpful by the translator in quickly locating passages. This has been

retained in the translation, and

scholars who wish to consult the Latin original will find it very useful.

While the translator is not sanguine enough to hope that he has succeeded
entirely in every aspect of his task, every effort was made to supply a
correct and accurate translation. He hopes that

he has also furnished an acceptable, easily readable rendition for the

modern English reader. For whatever imperfections cling to the work, he
and he alone must bear the blame.

The editor wishes to express his special thanks to Dr. J. A. O. Preus and the
board of control of

Concordia Theological Seminary, Springfield, Ill., for granting him a year’s

leave of absence to complete the work on the Examen, Part I; to Dr. Lorman
Petersen of The Committee for Research

for his unfailing help in settling all questions which arose in connection
with the direction of the

work; to Prof. Harry A. Huth for reading a major portion of the translation
and offering valuable

advice; to Donald Kramer for typing the rough draft of the revised
translation; and to Donna Cherryholmes for expert typing of the completed
manuscript.

FRED KRAMER

Concordia Theological Seminary

Springfield, Illinois

Biographical Sketch of

MARTIN CHEMNITZ

Martin Chemnitz1 was born at Treuenbrietzen, about 15 miles north-cast of

the city of Wittenberg, on Nov. 9, 1522. His father, though descended from
noble ancestors, was a wool merchant, and in moderate circumstances. His
mother was Euphemia, née Koldeborn, of Jüterbog. The father died when

Martin was 11 years old. An older brother, Matthäus, wanted the mother,
who does not appear to have

sensed any special gifts in young Martin, to apprentice him to a worker in

wool. However, Laurentius

Barthold, the local schoolmaster, recognized Martin as a boy of superior

gifts, and persuaded the mother

to send him to the Latin school in Wittenberg. His teacher reported that
Martin was not learning his Latin grammar, and he was compelled to return
home to attend school there.

Though reports from Wittenberg had it that Martin was not learning his
Latin grammar, he was soon

found reading the Latin writings of Laurentius Valla with great pleasure,
and even translating the apocryphal book of Jesus Sirach from German into
Latin. Friends of the family then persuaded the mother to send Martin to
school in Magdeburg. There he studied diligently for three years, learned
his

Latin grammar, and became proficient in writing Latin. There he also began
the study of Greek and of

astronomy.
After completing the school at Magdeburg, young Martin desired to attend
the university. However,

being without means of support, he became a tutor. After he had saved

some money, he went to the university at Frankfurt on the Oder, where
Georg Sabinus, a relative, was professor. Here he studied for

one year. When his savings were exhausted, he became schoolmaster at

Brietzen, near Frankfurt. There

he supplemented his income from teaching with collecting the fish taxes.
Much of his income he invested in books.

Against the advice of his brother, Chemnitz then went to Wittenberg to

study under Melanchthon, who advised him concerning the study of Greek
and mathematics, which at that time included the study

of the planets and their movements. In that connection Chemnitz began the
study of astrology and became adept at setting up horoscopes, by means of
which art he secured the friendship and patronage

of Duke Albert of Prussia.

Chemnitz had come to Wittenberg about 1545, the year before Luther’s
death. Not having come to study theology, he does not appear to have come
to know Luther well, although he loved to hear him

preach and heard some of his lectures.

When the Smalcald War disrupted the University of Wittenberg temporarily,

Chemnitz, together with

Georg Sabinus, went to Königsberg, where he tutored Polish students and

earned the degree of Magister.

It was at Königsberg that Chemnitz developed a deep interest in the study

of theology. He had prepared calendars and horoscopes for Duke Albert of
Prussia but was becoming disillusioned with astrology, because he felt that
it did not rest on firm foundations. When the ducal library at Königsberg
was in need of a librarian, Chemnitz petitioned the Duke for the position
and was appointed.

This opened the opportunity to study theology. Having turned his back on
astrology, Chemnitz now

gave himself wholeheartedly to the study of theology. Being given to great

thoroughness in all that he

did, he first read all the Biblical books together with the Apocrypha in
order. Then he read all the commentaries in the ducal library. As he read he
took notes on slips of paper, which he always kept handy for this purpose.
Thereafter he read through the church fathers from the most ancient times.

These he followed with the writings of the purer teachers of more recent
times. This continued for about three years.

Then the so-called Osiandristic controversy broke out in Königsberg.

Andreas Osiander, a favorite of

Duke Albert of Prussia, promulgated a doctrine of justification which stated

that the sinner is justified, not by imputed, but by essential, righteousness.
Because Chemnitz resisted Osiander sharply, he fell from the Duke’s favor
and would have been dismissed if it had not been for the Duke’s need of an
astrologer. Chemnitz, however, decided of his own accord that he would not
remain in the unfriendly atmosphere of Königsberg, particularly since his
friend Joachim Mörlin had been banished by the duke.

Mörlin was soon called to Braunschweig as superintendent, and in 1553

Chemnitz journeyed once again to Wittenberg to resume his studies under
the guidance of Melanchthon, who very soon pressured

Chemnitz into lecturing on his Loci Communes. The lectures were well
received, and a place on the faculty of the University of Wittenberg seemed
assured for Chemnitz, when he received a call as assistant to Mörlin in
Braunschweig. Despite strenuous attempts on the part of the faculty at
Wittenberg
to persuade him to remain, Chemnitz accepted the call to Braunschweig.
Before he departed,

Bugenhagen ordained him without previous examination. Chemnitz had

learned most of his theology by

private study. At Braunschweig he began preaching regularly. It seems that

at first he was not a strong

preacher, but he learned rapidly and soon overcame his lack of experience
in the pulpit. His sermons are

described as doctrinal, short, simple, and clear. The clergy at Braunschweig

took them as models.

By 1557 Duke Albert of Prussia had come to the conviction that Chemnitz
and Mörlin had been right

in their firm position in the Osiandristic controversy, and he sought to recall

both men to his realm.

After some negotiations the city council at Braunschweig agreed to permit

Mörlin to return to Prussia,

provided Chemnitz remained and became superintendent in Mörlin’s place.

Very reluctantly Chemnitz

acceded, not, however, before he had drawn up separate sets of articles for
the ministerium of Braunschweig, the city council, and the treasurers, to be
subscribed by them.

The articles for the ministerium specified:

1. That all members of the ministerium would abide by the corpus of

doctrine which was in force in

the churches at Braunschweig and would strive unitedly and constantly

against error;
2. That all pastors would work together in the matter of church customs and
ceremonies;

3. That no pastor would belittle a brother pastor or speak evil against him,
that all complaints would

be brought before the assembled ministerium, and that the aggrieved parties
would not leave the

assembly before a reconciliation had been effected;

4. That the superintendent should have the right to admonish members of

the ministerium, and members of the ministerium to admonish the
superintendent when they found fault with one

another;

5. That, though he sought no personal honor, the brethren give the

superintendent due reverence and

obedience for the sake of the proper conduct of the office.

Chemnitz asked the city council of Braunschweig to subscribe to the

following six points:

1. The council will abide by the accepted body of doctrine and will permit
the ministerium at all

times to teach according to it and to warn against false doctrine;

2. The ministerium will be permitted not only to teach the true doctrine and
to warn against false doctrine but also to rebuke ungodly living, even if this
should be found in the city council and its

members;

3. The city council will not interfere with the exercise of proper church
discipline on the part of the
superintendent and the ministerium;

4. The city council will not call any minister without the consent of the
ministerium and the superintendent, nor remove any pastor from office
without the consent of the same parties;

5. The council will foster the city schools but will not engage teachers
unless they have the approval

of the superintendent;

6. The assistant to the superintendent provided for in the church order of

Braunschweig will be appointed by the council only after prior approval of
the superintendent.

There followed a separate article for the church treasurers, who are directed
to be fathers to the preachers and to look after their temporal wants.

These articles, which show the grasp which the superintendent-elect had of
the problems he would face in office, were accepted and subscribed by the
ministerium, the city council, and the treasurers.

Thereupon Chemnitz accepted the call to the office of superintendent.

Chemnitz showed rare insight and exemplary diligence as superintendent.

He met with the pastors of

the city twice a month to discuss doctrine and practical matters, especially
church discipline. This promoted peaceable relations between pastors and
people. He persuaded the senate at Braunschweig to

provide for the widows and orphans of pastors in their domain. He saw to it
that care and dignity were

maintained in the calling of pastors. Candidates who were considered for a

call were examined as to their purity of doctrine before a call was issued.

In the meetings which he conducted regularly with the ministerium of

Braunschweig, Chemnitz again
took up the lectures on Melanchthon’s Loci, which he had begun at
Wittenberg. These lectures were continued at intervals almost to the end of
Chemnitz’ life but were never completed. The extant lectures,

which were published posthumously as Chemnitz’ Loci Theologici, are a

veritable storehouse of sound theological learning.

Chemnitz is justly famous as churchman and preacher; nevertheless, his

abiding fame rests on his work in connection with the controversies
between the Roman Catholic Church and the churches which

adhered to the Augsburg Confession, and the strife which rent the latter
churches after Luther’s death.

The first led to his famous Examen of the canons and decrees of the Council
of Trent, the second to his large share in the production and wide
acceptance of the Formula of Concord on the part of Lutherans.

The Examen

A short writing by Chemnitz against the then new Jesuit order brought him
into conflict first with Johannes Alber of Cologne, who proved but an
indifferent antagonist, and then with the more

formidable Jacob Payva de Andrada, a Portuguese, who sought to discredit

Chemnitz’ exposé of the Jesuits but in the course of his writing revealed
that he was really defending the theology of the Council of Trent. This
council had been meeting with some interruptions since 1545 to put down
what it considered the heresies of the Reformers, particularly of Martin
Luther.

In answer to the book of Andrada,2 Chemnitz analyzed the canons and

decrees of the Council of Trent in four books and showed by exhaustive
evidence from Scripture and from both the most ancient

and the purer among the more modern teachers of the church where the
Council of Trent had departed
from the teaching of Scripture. In the first of these volumes, in the section
on Scripture and Tradition, he worked out the so-called formal principle of
the Reformation, that the Scripture, and not tradition or a

combination of the Scripture and tradition, is the source and norm of

doctrine in the Christian church.

This first volume, which appeared in 1565, covers the chief articles of the
Christian faith. In the remaining three volumes he treats with equal clarity
the sacraments and the abuses in the Roman Catholic Church, which the
Council of Trent had sought to defend.

The Examen became famous at once. It was translated into German by

Georg Nigrinus, into French

by M. Vassorius, and by 1582 the section concerning traditions had been

translated and published in English. The Examen is widely acknowledged
not only as a masterful polemic against the canons and

decrees of the Council of Trent but also as a thorough exposition of the faith
and teaching of the adherents of the Augsburg Confession. It has earned not
only the highest praise of Lutherans but also

the respect of noted Roman Catholics.

The Formula of Concord

The serious dissensions which broke out among adherents of the Augsburg
Confession after Luther’s

death had their root in part in the ambitions of certain men within the
Lutheran party but to a large extent also in the vacillations and
philosophical leanings of Melanehthon, who allowed himself to be
pressured by the so-called Interims, documents imposed by the Roman
Catholics on the Lutherans as a

mode of operation until such a time as an ecumenical council could settle

the doctrinal questions which
had split the western church. The difficulties involved not only the teaching
concerning original sin and

conversion, and therefore also the doctrine of justification, but also the
Lord’s Supper and ecclesiastical ceremonies.

A number of Lutheran theologians took it upon themselves to clarify the

points at issue and to allay

the controversies which were threatening to destroy the churches of the

Augsburg Confession. Among

these were Jakob Andreae, David Chytraeus, and Martin Chemnitz. Above
all others it was Chemnitz

who wrote and rewrote the separate articles according to need and
persuaded princes and pastors to subscribe to the final document, the
Formula of Concord. He did not succeed in persuading either all the

princes or all the pastors to subscribe. To his great sorrow his own prince,
Duke Julius of Braunschweig,

who was miffed at Chemnitz because of an admonition he had incurred

from the latter, refused to subscribe. The Formula of Concord was,
however, signed by three electors, 20 dukes and princes, many

lesser nobles, 35 imperial cities, and about 8,000 pastors and teachers. Its
wide acceptance saved the Lutheran Church from destroying itself by
internal strife.

Other Literary Labors

Chemnitz was a prolific writer. Worthy of special mention among his

published works beside the Loci, the Examen, and the Formula of Concord
is De Duabus Naturis, an immensely learned work on the two natures in
Christ, and his Harmony of the Four Gospels, which he did not manage to
finish, but which was carried to completion by Polycarp Leyser and Johann
Gerhard and published posthumously.
Family, Later Years, Illness, and Death

In the year 1555, the year after he had become superintendent at

Braunschweig, Chemnitz married Anna Jaeger, daughter of a licensed jurist.
She is reputed to have been a beautiful and gracious lady.

Two sons and eight daughters were born of this union. Four daughters died
in infancy. One son, Martin,

became a doctor of jurisprudence, the other, Paul, canonicus at

Braunschweig.

Throughout most of his life Chemnitz enjoyed excellent health, which

enabled him to do an amazing

amount of scholarly and administrative work. But by 1582, though only 60

years old, he was worn out

and ill. His memory began to fail, and more and more he became unable to
walk. In 1584 he resigned

from office. On April 6, 1586, he died quietly, at peace with God.

Evaluation of Chemnitz as Theologian and Churchman

Martin Chemnitz was in many ways an ideal theologian — pious, humble,

learned, thorough,

moderate, peace-loving. Theology was for him not merely an intellectual

pursuit. For him theology existed to serve the church. He believed that there
was a consensus in doctrine within the ancient church, though he was not
unaware of the aberrations which had occurred in every period of the
church.

He believed that Luther and the adherents of the Augsburg Confession had
returned to this consensus in

their theology, and he labored ceaselessly both as churchman and as

theologian to keep the church with
this consensus. His friends rejoiced in his work, and even his enemies
respected him. His importance for

the Lutheran Church has been aptly expressed in the saying “If the second
Martin (Chemnitz) had not

come, the first Martin (Luther) would scarcely have endured.”

1 To this day no exhaustive biography of Martin Chemnitz has been written.

These notes on his life and work are indebted to a brief biography by
Theodor Pressel (Elberfeld: Verlag von R. L. Friderichs,

1862), which makes liberal use of the Chemnitz autobiography (English

trans. by A. L. Graebner in Theological Quarterly [St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House]. III, 4 [Oct. 1899]. pp. 472 to 487); to Vita Martini
Chemnicii, in the appendix of the Preuss edition of the Examen Concilii
Tridentini; and to Rehtmeyer, Antiquitates ecclesiasticae inclytae urbis
Brunsvigae, an extensive documentary history of the city and church of
Braunschweig.

2 Andrada’s book bears the title: Orthodoxarum explicationum libri decem,

in quibus omnia fere de religione capita, quae his temporibus ab haereticis
in controversiam vocantur, aperte & dilucide explicantur.

PREFACE

To the First Part of the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent

1 It is now three years since I set forth in brief form for our readers the chief
parts of the teaching of the Jesuits on the basis of a published document of
their own, with the intention that

this sect, which was described as only recently established by the Roman
pontiff for the specific

purpose of destroying the churches that embrace the pure teaching of the
Gospel, might be made
known to our churches not only according to their name and garb but in the
way Christ in John 10:1–18 teaches us to distinguish the true shepherd from
the stranger, namely by the kind of teaching they profess and proclaim.

I merely set forth the main points, without a longer explanation, that I might
give them occasion

to explain their position more fully themselves. But out of that whole sect,
or conspiracy, which they themselves call a society, no one has until now
been willing to come down into the arena.

Anyone who is not altogether stupid can easily guess why they have
avoided this battle so

persistently.

Nevertheless, lest they keep silence altogether, which could have turned out
harmful to them, they thrust forward a hired scapegoat, that poor hotshot1
John Alber, from the University of Ingolstadt. From behind his mask, as
though he were on the stage, he acted out his farce in a German script, and
did it so ridiculously, that, when he had hardly begun and could see how his
farce would fare as the plot thickened, he threw off his mask and dashed
from the theater after he

had given the spectators reason to hope that another comedian would soon
follow who would

perform the remaining parts of the farce, if not more successfully, then at
least more brilliantly.

Finally there came forward from the Synod of Trent a boastful orator to act
out the farce of the

Jesuits, Jacob Payva Andrada, a Portuguese, who tells us in the dedicatory

epistle of his book that

those whose authority was foremost at the Council of Trent had urged him
to undertake to refute
my booklet concerning the theology of the Jesuits because the fathers
understood from what they

had heard from many people that my writing had been received with
approval and rejoicing on our

side. So says Andrada.

2 From this I gather that the fathers of the council were not so much
concerned for the Jesuits,

but that they wanted to disseminate the explanation of their decrees among
men through Andrada

as a suitable interpreter of the council. This, it seems, also the title

Orthodox Explanations of the

Controverted Points of Religion 2 plainly indicates. Therefore I shall deal

from here on not with the Jesuits, who persistently shun the fight, but with
this argument of Andrada.

When I had set forth two things in my booklet, namely, the origin and the
theology of the Jesuits, the Ingolstadt spokesman John Alber tried to set
many things in the theology of the Jesuits

into a milder light and to interpret them in another way. But Andrada not
only tries to preserve all

of this exactly as it is, like a house in good repair, but, lest he should appear
inferior to them, he

amplifies this theology with a great deal of even greater impudence and
adds much more offensive

figures of speech, so that for the cause of the Jesuits no more suitable
advocate could have been

found in all the wide world than Andrada.

Let the theology of the Jesuits therefore remain what it is until they
themselves again set it forth,

supplemented and revised.

3 In order that I may with good grace send the Jesuits from me placated and
propitiated (if by

chance they were before offended, which one ought not to suspect in view
of their holiness), I shall

add certain things here which I have learned from the account of Andrada
concerning the origin,

founding, and age of the sect of the Jesuits. … It is useful that the true story
of the plan to found

this papal offspring should be available and known. I must confess that until
now I was not able to

learn anything certain from the writers of our time, and for the
understanding of a thing so recent the writings of antiquity are useless.
Therefore I followed such written notices of theirs as I was able to get.

Now I have heard that among so many and such varied swarms of religious
orders of the papal

church the Theatines, who have their origin from Paul IV, and the Jesuits,
who have a different origin, have been confused. In order that this error
may be rendered venial by means of

satisfaction, I shall here simply and briefly repeat the story of the origin …
of the Jesuit order from

the bombastic account of Andrada.

4 At the siege of the fortress of Pamplona, a soldier, Ignatius Loyola, had

one leg shattered by a
cannonball and the other severely wounded. Later he decided to leave his
home, fatherland, and whatever possessions he had and to enter upon a new
life of austerity and humility. Because he understood that a knowledge of
letters would be most useful for the way of life which he desired to

enter, he went to Paris, where he devoted himself to study for 10 years and
gained 10 associates for

his new religious order. When the 10 years were up, he returned to Spain
with the new companions

of his recently founded order in the year 1536.

Later, in the year 1537, they went to Rome to procure permission from the
pope to visit the places in the holy city of Jerusalem. But because the
Turkish war with the Venetians interfered with

this design, they changed their plan and decided to devote their lives to
teaching the churches.

Seven of them were therefore consecrated by a papal legate at Venice and

received authority to teach the people freely everywhere, to hear private
confessions …, and to administer the

sacraments.

In the year 1540, with Cardinal Contarini as advocate, they petitioned Pope
Paul III that he should confirm this mode of life by papal authority. He
approved, however with the stipulation that

not more than 60 men should be enrolled in this society. Later, however,
when they realized that

this way of life was far better suited than that of the other religious orders
for reviving and restoring the wavering and tottering papal church, he
decreed in the year 1543 that this society, known as The Society of Jesus,
should not be limited … either with respect to places or number of

members.
The mode of life of this order Andrada quotes as follows: “Whoever wants
to be a soldier in our

society and to serve only the Lord and the Roman pontiff, His vicar on
earth, let him make the solemn vow of perpetual chastity, and let him
resolve in his own mind that he is part of a society

instituted most of all for this, that it may devote itself to the propagation of
the faith through public

preaching, and particularly through instruction of boys and of the unlearned

in the Christian religion, and through consolation of the faithful in hearing
confessions,” etc.

5 About the same time this Ignatius came to the conclusion that Germany,
which had defected

from the papal see, could be brought back under the yoke of the pope in no
other way than through

preachers fitted for this. Therefore he sent some of his associates into
Germany. The attempt demonstrated that they could and would hurt the
churches in Germany more by their hypocrisy

than all the other artificial religious orders of monks. Then Cardinal John
Morone, who in the most

recent Synod of Trent had been the papal legate and a chairman of the
council, advised Ignatius how useful it could be for the papal church, if a
magnificent school were built at Rome, in which a

large number of German young men would be instructed in the liberal arts
and in religion at the expense of the pope, in order that they might later,
when they returned to their fatherland, be able

there to renew at least in part the collapsed and downtrodden papal religion.

This work the Jesuits undertook in the year 1553, when such a school was
built in Rome, not far
from the school of the Jesuits. Andrada says that these young men are
received into this school not

that they may finally be admitted to the Jesuit order, but he says that the
Jesuits are careful only

that they may be nourished, guided, and instructed, and that they have been
moved to undertake this labor only by the desire for the salvation of
Germany, namely, that through these emissaries Germany may be brought
back little by little to the bosom, or, if this is too much, to kissing the feet

of the Roman pontiff. Concerning this wily trick of the Jesuits Andrada has
such high expectations

for himself and his that he says: “I have no doubt that by the labor and
diligence of these young

men Germany will in time recover for itself the light of faith (that is, the
papal faith) of which it

has been robbed,” etc.

This is what I said earlier in my book, that the sect of the Jesuits was
created most of all for the

destruction of the churches in Germany. This John Alber of Ingolstadt tried

bravely to refute by outright denial. But we thank Andrada, who set forth
for us the whole reason for the founding of

this sect simply and clearly, without trying to hide anything, so that we no
longer need to guess, either from rumors or from conjectures, with what
intention the Roman See thrust this new

offspring upon the world in these last times of the world.

6 I wanted to insert this story in the preface of this book, in order that I
might dismiss the Jesuits with some degree of good will. For in this answer
I have decided to deal with the argument of Andrada, not with those who
are afraid to come out in public.
Up to this time the papalists have attempted to further their cause by various
tricks. After hurling

the lightning of their anathemas from Trent, they have engaged a man in
whom grand and colorful

speech is coupled with harsh and proud abusiveness, if by chance the

simplicity of the Germans could in this way either be bewitched or, panic
stricken, be driven from the acknowledged truth of

the divine Word. With his high-flying repeated introductions and his
proudly stated arguments, Andrada is regarded as launching who knows
what, but I see that he actually brings forth nothing

more than the others who up to this time have been defenders of papal
shame. His harsh and proudly arrogant talk will not succeed in selling fog,
long since dispersed by the light of the Scripture. As I was reading, a saying
of Irenaeus came to mind: “Inflated with pride he enters, affecting the
arrogant bearing of the cock,” also what the poet sings:

What present worthy of this big mouth will this maker of promises bring?

He spouts big and bombastic words.3

7 I had many weighty reasons why I wanted to answer Andrada since he

provoked me to this debate so proudly and insolently. In addition, many
things are stated in such a way in those 10

books of Andrada that a discussion of them cannot but be useful and

instructive. But lest I weary

the reader needlessly with boring repetition and distasteful refutation of the
abusive words of Andrada, I thought that my answer should be made rather
concerning the issues themselves, in order that thus some benefit might,
with the help of God, accrue to the church from this dispute.

Also, I am convinced that the materials of my answer have been offered and
shown to me by God.
Andrada played a principal role in the deliberations of the Synod of Trent
and wrote his books

against me while the council was in session, and he did so at the request and
urging of those whose

advice the fathers of the council accepted as though it came from the oracle
of the fabled Pythian

Apollo, for these are the very words of Andrada.

Moreover, Andrada quite bluntly explains many things which are hard to
understand in the

decrees of the council, the meaning of which a person could hardly suspect
as he reads. This will

be shown in the proper places. So, when at about the same time I received
both the vituperations of

Andrada and the decrees of the Council of Trent, I felt certain that the way
had been shown to me

in which the answer should be undertaken. The decrees of the synod are set
forth briefly and simply. But what went on at the deliberations, on what
basis the decisions were made, and from

what fountains they were drawn, with what trickery the degrees were
fabricated, what is their meaning and purpose, these things the explanations
of Andrada will to some extent show.

Andrada remained at Trent until the council was ended and dissolved. And
right there, in the midst of the actions of the council, he completed his
explanations. And though he was not the chairman, he certainly was present
at all deliberations at the sessions held under Pius IV. There is

therefore no doubt that he investigated also those things which had been
treated in the preceding
sessions.

8 When I shall have compared Andrada’s explanations with the decrees of

the council and shall

have compared and examined both according to the norm of the Scripture, I
shall on that basis draw up and publish an Examination of the Decrees of
the Council of Trent, which can, I think, be

done with some benefit to the reader. I judge that in this way I can most
fitly answer my opponent

Andrada and wash and wipe away the stains which, by means of his
vituperations, he has cast not

only on my garments but on those of our churches. But if the reader should
see that I do not follow

up every single item with a fitting explanation, let him remember that I
undertook this examination

only as a result of the occasion which I said Andrada had given me. I hope
Andrada will not be angry with me because I did not consider most of his
abusive words worthy of an answer, since this our investigation is
undertaken rather with a view to the matters under dispute.

9 I am not willing here to repeat those things which were pointed out to the
whole world this year in published writings by men on our side, showing
for what reasons they do not acknowledge

the Council of Trent as a true, legitimate, free, and Christian council, but I
shall continue my discourse within the bounds of an examination. Also, I
propose to examine particularly those

decrees which contain dogmas concerning which there is controversy at this

time. For what they

say about reformation they finally submit to the judgment of the pope in
such a way that they show
that these things were treated not in earnest but, as the saying is, pro forma.

10 To be sure, the authority of councils is most salutary in the church, as

Augustine rightly says, that is, if they judge according to the rule and norm
of the sacred Scripture. And when they prove

their decisions by means of sure and clear testimonies of Scripture, the

church owes them

obedience with the greatest reverence as to a heavenly voice. Then also this
statement of Christ applies (Luke 10:16): “He who hears you hears Me, and
he who rejects you rejects Me.” But when

the mere name “council” is heard, it ought not at once turn us into rocks,
treetrunks, and stocks, as

though it were the head of Gorgo,4 so that we thoughtlessly embrace any

and all decrees without examination, without inquiry and careful judgment.
For the Scripture tells us that there are also councils of the wicked, Ps.
22:16; of vain persons, Ps. 26:4; of the ungodly, Ps. 1:1, whose assembly
Jer. 15:17, on the basis of the psalm, calls an assembly of mockers, who
have their name

from their false interpretation. Such were the councils of the ungodly priests
against Micah, Jeremiah, against Christ and the apostles. We have, however,
the strict command of God, 1 John

4:1: “Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are
of God; for many false

prophets have gone out into the world.”

1 Thess. 5:21: “Test everything; hold fast what is good.”

Matt. 7:15: “Beware of false prophets,” etc.

11 Therefore it is right, and it must of necessity be done according to the

commandment of God,
that we examine the decrees of the councils according to the norm of sacred
Scripture, as the saying of Jerome has it: “That is the doctrine of the Holy
Spirit which is set forth in the canonical

books. If the councils pronounce anything against this, I consider it

wicked.” For we are dealing

with a great matter which concerns the salvation of souls. It is truly a piece
of papalist tyranny to

demand that we should simply agree without examination, without

investigation and judgment, to the bare decrees of the Council of Trent, in
which one and the same person is the accuser, though

himself guilty, and the judge, in whose introductory speech the canonical
Scripture is thrust from

its place, that it may not be the sole rule and norm of judgment.

Of course, the papalists appeal to the law of Emperor Martian concerning

the Holy Trinity and

the Catholic faith: “Let no one draw into dispute matters which have once
been judged and rightly

ordered by a synod, seeking thereby occasion for tumults or treachery.” But

this most godly

emperor by no means intended to grant to councils infinite license to invent

and decree what they

pleased outside of, beside, and against the Word of God. Nor should anyone
believe that he

desired, by his decree, to abrogate and take away liberty of judging and
diligence in testing all things, which God gave and commanded to the
church. For he says that the things which have been
rightly ordered are not again to be drawn into dispute. In the Acts of the
Council of Chalcedon, where the whole decree of Martian is found, these
are his words: “Now let profane contention cease, for whoever debates
anything further after the truth has been found, seeks lies.”

But among us this burning question is being debated: Were those things
which were judged by

the Synod of Trent ordered rightly? Was the truth concerning the
controversies of our times found

at Trent?

By means of these disputations we are not seeking tumults or occasion for

treachery, which

Emperor Martian rightly forbade, but without uprising, without arms, only
by the voice of the doctrine, we inquire according to the norm of the
Scripture which has been divinely revealed, lest

we under the authority of a synod be led astray from the true, life-giving
faith, which Augustine

says is conceived from the canonical Scripture, to the falsehood of human

traditions.

This right of examination, given and commanded to the church by the voice
of God, no creature

either should or can forbid or condemn. And if my opponent Andrada by

that pride and harshness

which is characteristic of him condemns this plan of examining the decrees

of the Synod of Trent,

he will show by this very act, with what intolerable tyranny the papalists try
to oppress the church
and to rule over its faith. If the Council of Trent has drawn up its decrees
rightly, if the truth is there found, it will not be afraid of an examination
which is made on the basis of Scripture, and it

will not be unwilling to endure it. For the truth does not flee the light, and
the words of the Lord

are pure, so that they do not fear to be tried by fire and to be tested seven
times. (Ps. 12:6)

Tertullian well says in his Apologeticus: “A law which does not want to be
tested is deservedly

suspect; and if it rules, undiscussed and untested, it is wicked, since no law

owes to itself alone the

consciousness that it is just but to those of whom it expects obedience.”

How much more is this true of the decrees of councils in matters of faith?
The ancient councils

did not thrust bare decrees, dictatorial and accountable to no one, upon the
churches, but by publishing the complete actions and the formal debates
they showed at the same time from what

sources and on what basis they had condemned what was false and asserted
what was true, that the

judgment of the church might be easier and more manifest. But the
Tridentine judges promulgate

only the bare decrees, without reasons, with praetorian authority in the
Christian world, and immediately they seem ready to threaten with fire and
sword those who contradict, or rather, who

only ask questions. This is the shortcut which the canonists follow, that the
Roman pope may substitute his will for his reason in things he wants.
12 We, however, ask that permission be granted us, even though our
adversaries are unwilling,

to use the liberty granted to us by the divine Word, not to believe any and
every spirit, but to test

all things. They in turn are free to look into our teachings, not as they are
accustomed to do, with

arguments procured from the workshops of hangmen, as Jerome says, but

with arguments and

testimonies from Scripture. If this were done, I would hope that in this way
many mysteries in

connection with the deliberations of the Synod of Trent would be brought

into the light by our adversaries, unless perchance they should judge that,
after the manner of mysteries, they had to be

hidden and covered over with silence, according to the saying: “He who
does evil hates the light.”

But let us come to the matter under discussion. We have indicated above in
what manner we

wish to handle the matter. Therefore we shall skip other preliminaries and
hasten to matters of doctrine. Only I would remind the reader in passing to
consider how the Synod of Trent was begun.

Pope Paul III, in the bull in which he announced the council, offered a sale
of indulgences described as full remission of sins, free by his liberality, to
those who would be present at the procession, would give an alms to some
pauper, or would recite the Lord’s prayer together with the

angelic greeting five times. Afterward, when the council itself was opened,
in the litany, where no
mention was made of the intercession of Christ, not even by so much as one
little word, they substituted all the angels and saints as mediators, patrons,
and intercessors in place of the only Mediator, Christ. This was followed by
Ambrosius Catharinus, who, in his prayer at the opening of

the council, addressed the mother of Christ as His associate who, as it were,
sat next to His throne

to secure grace for us by her pleading. A certain other man, in his prayer
criminally distorting the

words of the Gospel which befit only the Son of God, applied them to the
pope and exclaimed:

“The pope came into the world, a light,” so that there was no doubt that at
the very beginning of

the Synod of Trent that was fulfilled which Paul prophesied 2 Thess. 2:3–4,
that “the man of sin

and the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is
called God …, sits in the

temple of God, proclaiming himself as if he were God.” From these

beginnings one can judge what

progress and outcome may be expected. It is impossible, according to the

proverbial saying, that

what has been badly begun should have a good ending.

Now let the decrees of the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent be
recited.

1 The misellum eccebolum, which Chemnitz applies to John Alber and

which we have translated

“poor hotshot,” has puzzled translators. Nigrinus, who translated the

Examen into German in 1576, renders it ein Eccbolisten oder
Mammelucken. R. Bendixen, in 1884, translates den armen Emigranten.

C. A. Frank, who in 1875, together with a number of other Lutheran

pastors, issued a German translation of the section of the Examen on
Scripture and Tradition, renders it den armen Wicht.

The word eccebolus, which is not found in Latin dictionaries, is a

transliteration of the Greek word

, which is used by Homer as an epithet for Apollo. It means “far-shooting,

far-hitting.” Because

it is used here and elsewhere by Chemnitz to express his scorn for John
Alber, we have rendered it

“hotshot,” which is often used similarly as a term of derision.

2 Jacobus Payva Andradius, Orthodoxarum explicationum libri decem

(Venice and Cologne, 1564).

3 Horace, De arte poetica, lines 97 and 138.

4 Gorgo, also called Medusa, according to Greek mythology had hair

consisting of snakes. She turned to stone all who looked on her.

First Topic

CONCERNING THE SACRED SCRIPTURES

From the Decrees of the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent

The First Decree of the Fourth Session of April 5, 1546

ACCEPTANCE AND LISTING OF THE SACRED BOOKS OF THE

OLD AND OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

The most holy ecumenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled
in the Holy Spirit, with
three legates of the Apostolic See presiding over it, making this always its
paramount aim, that, after the removal of all errors, the purity of the Gospel
might be preserved in the church, which, promised beforehand in the Holy
Scriptures through the prophets, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first
proclaimed with His own mouth, thereafter commanded to be preached to
every creature through His apostles as the fountain of all saving truth and
instruction in morals, and perceiving that this truth and instruction is
contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, after
they had been

received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself or from the
apostles, the Holy Spirit dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it
were from hand to hand; and following the example

of the orthodox fathers, it receives and venerates with equal devotion and
reverence all the books both

of the Old and of the New Testament (since one God is the author of both)
and also said traditions, both

those pertaining to faith and those pertaining to morals, as dictated either

orally by Christ or by the Holy Spirit and preserved by a continuous
succession in the Catholic Church.

The synod judged that a list of the sacred books should be inserted in this
decree, lest doubt should

arise in anyone’s mind which the books are that are received by this synod.

The following are the books of the Old Testament: The five books of
Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Then Joshua,
Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Chronicles,

two of Ezra, the first and the second, which is called Nehemiah, Tobit,
Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic

Psalter of 150 Psalms, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of

Songs, Wisdom,
Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, the 12 minor
prophets, namely, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum,
Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, two of the

Maccabees, the first and the second.

Of the New Testament the four gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John, the Acts of the

Apostles written by Luke, the evangelist, 14 epistles of the blessed apostle

Paul, namely, to the Romans,

two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians,

to the Colossians, two to

the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews,

two of the apostle Peter, three

of the apostle John, one of James, one of the apostle Jude, the Apocalypse
of the apostle John.

If anyone does not accept these books whole, with all their parts, as they
have customarily been read

in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old Vulgate Latin edition, as
sacred and canonical, and

knowingly and intentionally despises the above-named traditions, let him be

anathema.

Let all, therefore, understand in what order and way this Synod, after it has
laid the foundation of the

confession of faith, will proceed and what testimonies and aids it will
chiefly use in confirming dogmas

and in the restoration of morals in the church.

The Second Decree of the Fourth Session

ACCEPTANCE OF THE VULGATE EDITION, AND THE METHOD
OF INTERPRETING AND PRINTING HOLY

SCRIPTURE

In addition, the same holy synod, considering that no small benefit may
come to the church of God if

it became known which of the many Latin editions of the sacred books in
circulation is to be considered

authentic, ordains and declares that the same ancient Vulgate edition, which
has been approved in this

church by the long use of so many centuries, is to be considered authentic in

public readings, disputations, sermons, or expositions and that no one
should dare or presume to reject it under any pretext whatsoever.

ANOTHER CANON

Furthermore, in order to restrain willful spirits, the synod decrees that no

one, relying on his own wisdom in matters of faith and morals that pertain
to the upbuilding of Christian doctrine, may twist the

Holy Scripture according to his own opinions or presume to interpret Holy

Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church has held and
holds, whose right it is to judge concerning the true sense

and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or contrary to the unanimous

consensus of the fathers, even

though such interpretations should at no time be intended for publication.

Those acting contrary to this

shall be reported by the ordinaries and be punished with the penalties

appointed by law.

Examination
1 Both the matter itself and the just complaints of the whole Christian world
have for many years loudly proclaimed that in the papal church many errors
have crept into the doctrine, and various abuses

into the ecclesiastical ceremonies. Therefore a true, lawful, free, and

Christian council has often been requested by the prayers of many and has
long been expected in which the true remedy would be applied to these
great evils, namely, from the Scripture, of which Basil says, commenting on
the beginning of the First Psalm, that “it was composed by the Holy Spirit
to be a general dispensary of medicine for souls.”

2 In the first session the pope indicated through his legates that at Trent a
synod had been opened …

which, they make themselves believe, has the purpose that, “after all errors
have been removed, the purity of the Gospel may be preserved in the
church.” These are fine words.

3 The synod, however, determined at the beginning which testimonies and

means in particular it would employ in stamping out heresies and
confirming dogmas. This is done rightly and in accord with

the example and manner of the pure ancient church. For Cusanus says
concerning … the old ecumenical

synods that it was the custom to bring the holy Gospels into the midst of the
synod, that [the fathers]

might be reminded with what means and weapons they were to fight in the
councils against errors for

the truth of the dogmas. That this was customarily done also in other
disputations concerning religion

Augustine tells us in his Letter No. 163.

Well known is also the memorable statement of Constantine the Great, with
which he in person opened the Synod of Nicaea. … He said: “It is the books
of the evangelists and of the apostles, and the

prophecies of the ancient prophets, which clearly instruct us what we are to

decide concerning divine

matters. Therefore let us take the solution of the questions from divinely
inspired utterances.”

4 What aids, then, has the Synod of Trent decided to employ to confirm the
dogmas? Is it the teaching of the Holy Spirit which, as Jerome says, is set
forth in the canonical writings? By no means,

say they, shall the Scripture be the sole rule and norm of our judgment; but
first of all they decree that the unwritten traditions, which have as proof
only the fact that they have been custom for a long time,

shall be accepted and venerated with the same pious affection and reverence
as the Scripture itself. In

the second place they destroy, abrogate, and set aside the difference
between the canonical books of the

Scripture and the Apocrypha, which is acknowledged by the whole true and
pure ancient church, in order that the authority of the canonical books and
of the Apocrypha may be equal and identical for the

confirmation of churchly dogmas. In the third place, although in the old

version [the Vulgate] the true

sense of the Scripture is often not sufficiently expressed, and often also
corrupted through errors of copyists, they decree that the Vulgate edition
must be considered the authentic one, so that no one may

dare to take it upon himself to reject it in disputations or expositions under

any pretext whatsoever, even though it is clearly shown to depart from the
original sources.

Because the Tridentine fathers do not sufficiently trust these aids, they, in
the fourth place, add what is their strongest demand, namely, that they alone
have the right and authority authentically to interpret the Scriptures: that is,
as Hosius says concerning the express Word of God: “If anyone has the
interpretation of the Roman Church, even if he does not see how it agrees or
conflicts with the text, he

still has the very Word of God.”

5 Do you think, therefore, dear reader, that the Tridentine fathers assembled
at the call of their earthly god, the Roman pope, in order that, if it has been
shown from the Word of God that any errors cling to

their doctrine or any abuses to their rites, they be prepared to correct or

amend them according to the

norm of the canonical Scripture? Perish the thought! For these very decrees
of the fourth session give

out the resounding confession before the whole world that the papalists
have in their church many, yes,

mostly such things which they can in no way prove, establish, and defend
with testimonies and proofs

from the canonical Scripture. Therefore they seek other proofs outside of
and beyond the Scripture, in

order that, when they are pressed and attacked with testimonies from
Scripture, they may not be compelled to yield to the truth but may have
other aids ready for use, a refuge, as it were, to which they may turn.

6 These many and varied defenses outside of, beyond, yes, against, the
Scripture they have placed and drawn up in convenient places in such a way
that they clearly indicate that they have come together

not with the intention of correcting anything according to the norm of

Scripture, but that they may by

other aids retain, defend, and impose upon the church all kinds of errors and
abuses, which have so far
been pointed out, reproved, and refuted from the Word of God.

Here we arc faced again with all the things which they decided at the
beginning of the synod with respect to their various defenses. They could
have resolved the whole matter with a few words if only

they had declared at the opening of the synod that they wanted to retain the
present condition of their

church, such as it is, and stubbornly defend it, nor permit anything
whatsoever to be corrected or emended according to the norm of the
canonical Scripture. Then it would not have been necessary to take so many
years, unless they judged that people had to be deceived under the pretext
and name of a

synod.

7 Tertullian, in his books, De resurrectione carnis, calls some people

lucifugas, that is, people who flee the light of the Scriptures. This title fits
no kind of men better than the assembly at Trent. For they have until now
shrunk back and fled from the light of Scripture in such a way that, I
believe, when even

a passing mention has been made of the canonical Scripture with pallid
mouth and trembling lips, they

immediately cast about for other … defenses, by means of which they may
envelop themselves in darkness if they are dragged into the light of
Scripture.

8 But these things must be examined more diligently, one by one. For these
are at the present time the chief points of doctrine of the papalists:
Concerning the insufficiency, the obscurity, and the uncertainty of
Scripture; concerning traditions; and concerning the supreme authority of
interpretation. For they see

that they will have been vanquished before the conflict, if their troops are
driven into these straits, namely, that nothing is to be accepted or believed
which cannot be shown and proved by testimonies from Scripture, so that
among those things which are put forth under the name either of tradition or
of

the fathers or of councils only that is to be accepted which agrees with the
authority of the divine Scriptures, and what does not agree may be scorned
as easily as it may be approved, according to the

saying of Jerome, or that (according to the rule of Augustine) it may be

rejected freely without offense

to those under whose name it is put forth.

SECTION I

Concerning Holy Scripture

1 The Tridentine fathers set forth their decrees in bare fashion, without
giving any reasons, and often veiled in various generalities. If they had seen
fit to make known also for what reasons, from what sources, and on what
grounds they had set up these decrees, the method of investigation and
criticism

would be easier. Nevertheless, matters stand well, for my opponent Andrada

and other papalist writers

reveal many such mysteries, either knowingly or unknowingly, to the

general public. When their declarations are taken into consideration, the
method of the examination will be plain, as this topic concerning the
Scripture and the following one concerning traditions will clearly show.
This fourth session makes honorable enough mention of the sacred books,
and it could appear that it wanted to say

only this, that the doctrine of the Gospel, which the apostles first
transmitted orally, is one and the same as that which they incorporated in
the written books. But let us hear Andrada, who is acquainted with
the secrets of the council, on what grounds and with what cunning this
decree was composed.

2 I had written that the Jesuits held this axiom in common with other
papalists, that the Holy Scripture is a mutilated, incomplete, and imperfect
teaching, because it does not contain all that pertains to faith and to rules for
pious living. Here, however, Andrada … rises up against me, harshly
shouting

with all his might about lies and injustice. When I read this, I wondered
what might be the reason why

Andrada recoiled so from these abusive words, which, as he well knows,

have been hurled much more

harshly at Holy Scripture by many papal writers. I thought that perhaps he

had begun, at the Synod of

Trent, to think more fairly and respectfully concerning the authority of

Scripture. If this were so, I should not take it amiss to be thus accused of
lying. Therefore I began attentively to study what followed, to see whether
Andrada, who was an important person at the synod, thought and confessed
that the heavenly doctrine, which is necessary for faith and an upright life,
is contained in the Holy Scripture in its entirety. … But he says: “It is by no
means contained in its entirety in the Scripture.” He admits that, even
though I did it in my own words, I nevertheless expressed the very opinion
which is

held by the Jesuits and by all papalists. Why, then, docs he storm so?
Because, he says, the common people might be stirred up if the Holy
Scripture were attacked with such harsh and hateful words. We

are therefore deeply grateful to Andrada, because we can now understand

why the decree of the Synod

of Trent did not want to employ those abusive words which many papalist
writers habitually pour out
against Holy Scripture, although it nevertheless wants to confirm and
sanction the same meaning in effect, namely, in order that the common
people may not be stirred up if the Scripture is attacked with

such harsh and hateful words. And this ingenious feature of the decree’s
composition should be observed carefully.

3 Let us further hear the meaning of this decree concerning the Scripture,
and what arguments were

considered in the deliberations when this decree was to be framed. Andrada

says that, when Christ thought it necessary to come to the aid of man’s frail
memory by means of the written Gospel, He wanted to have so brief a
summary committed to writing that the greater part, as the treasure of great

price, might be left to tradition, inscribed on the innermost heart of the

church.

From Jer. 31:33 Andrada (as do also other papalist writers) tries to prove
that the teaching of the New

Testament, which was first proclaimed orally by Christ Himself and

afterwards, at the dictation of the

Holy Spirit, preached by the apostles and spread throughout the whole
world, has this characteristic by

which God wanted it distinguished from the teaching of the Old Covenant,
that it should neither be contained on tablets of stone nor written down with
pen and ink. Accordingly, he adds that it was not

done at the command of Christ when the evangelists and the apostles
committed certain things to writing, for He commanded them to preach, not
to write.

I, on my part, add that the way the passage from Jeremiah is treated by the
papalists, it follows clearly
and without contradiction that it was done contrary to the word and will of
God that even some few things of the teaching of the New Testament were
written down with pen and ink by the apostles. For if

the things are true which the papalists say about the passage in Jeremiah,
then it must be the will and

command of God that nothing at all of the teaching of the New Testament
should be committed to writing, for He does not say that the new law
should be written partly on tablets and partly in minds, but according to
their understanding Paul must simply say that it should not be written with
ink.

4 According to this understanding we must therefore have the books of the

New Testament written without the will and command of Christ, or rather,
against the word, will, and command of God.

Andrada may be burned up over this, yet it is certain that this clearly
follows from their premises, even

if it cloaks itself in different language, namely: “Lest the common people,”

as Andrada says, “be stirred

up if the Scripture is attacked with such hateful words.” To put their long
arguments into a few words:

This is what they fight for, not only with both hands but with their whole
body and with its every fiber,

that the evangelists and apostles by no means wrote with this in mind, that
they were writing down for

posterity the things that are necessary for faith and for the rules of godly
living, in order that the Scripture might be the canon, norm, and rule of faith
in the church. They invent far different reasons.

After Andrada has argued with many words that Christ and the apostles had
all those years preached
many more things than could be comprehended in the narrow confines of
the books of the New Testament, he finally concludes that many things
must be believed which are not written, and that the

fixed opinion of the church must therefore be received and held as equal to
the Gospel. Therefore he declares that the most precise norm, canon, or rule
of faith is not the Scripture but the judgment of the

church. He added also that the Gospel is much more clearly expressed in
the life of the godly than it is

comprehended in literary works.

In his Hierarchiae ecclesiasticae assertio (Bk. 1, ch. 2), Pighius says that
the apostles wrote some things not in order that these writings should rule
over our faith and religion but rather that they should be subject to them.
And finally he concludes that the authority of the church is not only not
inferior, nor merely equal, but in a certain way even superior to and more
excellent than the authority of the Scripture, for it was the church which
imparted canonical authority to the chief writings, which they did

not possess either of themselves or from their authors.

In ch. 3 he says that the epistles of the apostles were written not to the
universal church but as the need arose in one or the other of the local
churches and that it is therefore not to be thought that the apostle wanted to
include in all his epistles all the precepts and mysteries of our faith and of
the Christian doctrine. He adds that the Epistle to Philemon, which contains
nothing except a plea for a fugitive slave, was not written by Paul with the
intention that it should be read in the whole church of

Christ. In the end he says: “Cursed are all who speak against the common
customs and traditions of the

church, received from old times, even if they neither contradict nor oppose
any Scripture.”
In ch. 4 he argues that in a doubtful matter, or when any kind of controversy
has arisen, the authority

of ecclesiastical tradition is more suitable and efficacious for working faith

and certainty than the Scriptures themselves. He gives as the reason that the
tradition is clearer, more open, and clearly inflexible, while the Scriptures
are frequently very obscure and permit themselves to be twisted and
accommodated to another meaning, if someone has a preconceived notion,
and that they can easily be

circumvented by a cautious interpretation. Therefore it follows that the

inflexible measuring instrument

by which the Scriptures, too, are measured is the consensus of ecclesiastical

tradition.

In the end he concludes: “If we had remembered this principle, that heretics
are not to be informed or

convicted from the Scriptures (these are his words), our affairs would
certainly be in a much better way.

But when some took up the fight with Luther on the basis of the Scriptures,
thinking to show off their

ability and learning, there was ignited this conflagration which we now
behold to our sorrow.”

5 Lest I take more time reciting the abusive words of individual papalists
against Holy Scripture, the sum and substance is this: They maintain that
Holy Scripture is not canon, norm, measuring instrument,

or rule, according to which all disputes concerning matters of faith are to be

adjusted, and this chiefly

for two reasons: (1) because Scripture is insufficient, for it does not contain
everything that is necessary for faith and godly living; (2) because also in
those things which it does contain it is obscure and ambiguous, like a
waxen nose or a leaden square. … Therefore they say that it is an occasion
of strife

rather than the voice of a judge, a teacher who cannot speak, a dead letter,
yes a letter that kills, etc.

Eck in characteristic fashion calls the Gospel dark, an ink-theology. It is

therefore in this sense that

the decree … of the synod concerning Scripture must be understood. We

have already learned from Andrada for what reasons and on what basis this
decree was framed in this way.

6 It remains now that we examine it. Let us bring to this examination (as
Augustine teaches) “no rigged balances, where we can weigh out what we
please and as we please, saying according to our own

will: ‘This is heavy; that is light.’ Rather let us bring forward the divine
balance from the Holy Scripture, from the treasuries of the Lord, and on it
let us weigh what is heavier, or rather, let us not weigh but recognize what
has been weighed by the Lord.” These are words of Augustine, De
baptismo

contra Donatistas, Bk. 2, ch. 9.

7 A great and important matter is under discussion. On that account the

papalists accuse us of willfulness, of perverse desire to disagree, and throw
certain other hateful names at us. But God, who

discerns the hearts, sees and knows that we apply that diligence in testing
everything which He Himself

has earnestly commanded, in order that we may not be carried about by

every wind of doctrine, but that

our faith may have a sure foundation and ground. For it is certain that the
world by its wisdom does not
know God (1 Cor. 1:21) but that God Himself revealed Himself and His
will to the human race by giving a sure Word, which He confirmed with
great miracles.

If, indeed, we were angels or dwelt among angels, there would no longer be
any need, either of worry

or of care, lest the purity of the revealed heavenly doctrine should be either
falsified or lost. But three truly great obstacles are thrown in our way: (1)
We live in this world, whose judgment in matters of faith is diametrically
opposed to that of the Holy Spirit; (2) our reason exalts itself against the
knowledge of God, for “the unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the
Spirit of God, for they are

folly to him”; (3) The devil is a liar, the father of lies, and the spirit of error.

As a result of these things the divinely revealed doctrine does not remain
pure and unadulterated always and everywhere in this world but is often
falsified and corrupted, either by spurious things, which are altogether false,
or by the mixing in of a leaven, which Paul calls

(“peddling for

gain”), as innkeepers adulterate wine by adding water, for so the Greek

translators use this word in Is.

1:22.

Neither is it a sure enough criterion if one appeals to the title of an ordained

minister. For it is written in Jer. 14:14: “The prophets are prophesying lies
in My name; I did not send them, nor did I command

them or speak to them. They are prophesying … the deceit of their own
minds.” In 1 Kings 22:22 we

read: “I will go forth and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the
prophets of the king, etc.”
Therefore one must consider, in what way, in so difficult a distinction, God
at all times graciously looked out for His church, that it might be certain
which doctrine it was to embrace as undoubted, heavenly, and divine, and
by what norm any errors, which should be avoided, could be known and
judged.

This consideration needs to be repeated in somewhat greater depth, that we

are able to observe in

sacred history from the beginning of the world, how often and in how many
ways the purity of the Word of God was adulterated and corrupted by the
cunning of the devil, the offenses of the world, and the willfulness of
reason, and on the other hand, with what fatherly concern for His church
God looked out

for the restoration and preservation of the purity of His Word against the
corruptions of the world, the

flesh, and the devil. We shall fit these observations to our present
disputations. What the papalists say, namely, that God uses another, clearly
different way of preserving the purity of the heavenly doctrine in

the New Testament than He did in the Old, that we shall dispose of later.

SECTION II

Concerning the Origin, Reason for, and Use of New Testament

Scripture

1 This whole dispute concerning Holy Scripture cannot, it seems to me, be

explained more simply and correctly, than by setting down the facts
concerning the first origin of the Holy Scripture, on what occasion, for what
reason, and for what use it was first instituted and given by God, for He did
not first begin this at the time of the New Testament. Therefore we must
judge from its first beginning. In this

way most of the objections of the papalists will be fully refuted.

God has from the beginning of the world, both before and after the Fall,
come forth from His hidden

dwelling place, which is an unapproachable light, and has revealed Himself

and His will to the human

race by giving His sure Word and adding manifest miracles. In order that
this divinely revealed doctrine

might be spread by the living voice and transmitted to posterity as from

hand to hand, God appointed

Adam, as it were, a bishop for his time. There is no doubt that God
bestowed on him a divine testimony

and authority, and also gave him a very long life, in order that he, through
his testimony, might safeguard the purity of the heavenly doctrine against
corruptions and keep his people from patched-on

foreign opinions.

2 But not long after this revelation Cain and his assembly departed from the
purity of the Word of God. After the death of Adam, however, not only the
descendants of Cain but also the sons of God, who

had accepted the traditions of the heavenly doctrine, corrupted their ways,
among which corruptions the

foremost was without doubt the adulteration of the Word of God. For God
says: “My Spirit shall not strive in man forever,” and He adds the reason:
“Because they are flesh, and the imagination of the human heart is evil.”
Thus the heavenly doctrine in the first world was transmitted by the living
voice,

unwritten, as it were from hand to hand. But because the imagination of the
human heart is evil, the purity of the Word was finally not preserved
faithfully by traditions of the living voice but corrupted and adulterated,
yes, in the end wholly lost. For God says: “My Spirit shall not strive in man
forever,

etc.”

At that time God gave special revelations to Noah, accompanied by

stupendous miracles in the Flood,

and restored the fallen purity of the doctrine, preserved it, and added a fuller
explanation of the same,

both before and after the Flood. By these miracles He confirmed Noah as “a
herald of righteousness” (2

Peter 2:5), that he should be a guardian of the purity of the doctrine and
should transmit it to his descendants by means of the living voice.

When the descendants of Noah were scattered over the whole earth, the
posterity of Shem was chosen, and the handing down of the heavenly
doctrine was committed to their keeping. But consider

how well and faithfully the tradition of the heavenly doctrine was preserved
by word of mouth in that

family which bore at that time the title of the true church! From the
confusion of the languages until Terah became the father of Abraham not
even 200 years had passed.5 Yet Terah, the father, and Abraham and Nahor
served strange gods, according to Joshua 24:2. They did not, however, cast
away

and trample underfoot the tradition of the true doctrine altogether; but by
the admixture of a leaven they corrupted and adulterated it, as the history of
Laban later shows. But a little leaven, according to Paul, corrupts the whole
mass. These things must be noted in order that we may realize what a
slippery and

uncertain guardianship and preservation the papalists have set up for the
doctrine of the New Testament
in the unwritten traditions. For we have now no promise of new and special
revelations such as they had

then. These are the last and mad times of a world grown old. Yet the
papalists demand that we establish the basis of the heavenly doctrine in
traditions as they are preserved unwritten in the minds of men, although the
Scripture shows us how uncertain was the custody of the Word of God
when it was preserved by tradition … in those first robust, youthful, and
flourishing times of the world.

At that time, when the traditions had been adulterated and corrupted, God
restored the purity of His

doctrine through special revelations made to Abraham, which also He

explained more fully, and made

Abraham a prophet (Gen. 20:7). Also in the following periods He spoke

directly with Isaac and Jacob,

and confirmed and restored the purity of His doctrine. And when Jacob was
about to die, he committed

this trust to his sons as a testament, that it should be transmitted and

preserved diligently as from hand to hand. As long as the 12 sons of Jacob
survived, it is probable that this tradition of sound doctrine was preserved
without corruption. Only a little over 100 years intervened between the
death of the sons of

Jacob and the exodus from Egypt. Yet how safely and faithfully the purity
of doctrine was preserved by

tradition within that brief period Ezekiel shows in ch. 20:7–8, where God
says: “I said to them, cast away the detestable things your eyes feast on,
every one of you …. But they rebelled against Me … they

did not every man cast away the detestable things their eyes feasted on, nor
did they forsake the idols of Egypt. Then I thought I would pour out my
wrath upon them … in the midst of the land of Egypt, etc.”
There also, as before, when tradition had not preserved what had been
entrusted to it, God, by special

revelations accompanied by many mighty miracles, recalled the purity of

His doctrine through Moses to

the ancient fountains of the patriarchs, as the written record in the Book of
Genesis clearly shows.

3 I have summed up the history of 2,454 years from the beginning of the
world more briefly than the magnitude of the material deserves, during
which time the heavenly doctrine, revealed in the divine Word, was
propagated and handed down without a divinely inspired Scripture, only by
the living voice,

by those who had been divinely called and confirmed for this by heavenly
revelations and other testimonies. We have, however, shown, with how little
faithfulness that tradition, which had been received from the patriarchs, was
retained and preserved by their descendants. For Scripture shows that

it was repeatedly corrupted, adulterated, and perverted by those whose duty

it was to preserve, propagate, and deliver to others the traditions received
from the fathers. These examples show what kind of guardianship and
preservation of the heavenly doctrine is exercised by later generations.

However, it seemed good to God at that time to restore, confirm, propagate,

and preserve the purity of

His Word through new and special revelations when it had begun to be
adulterated through the traditions. Why, indeed, He wanted at that time to
use this and not some other way, it is not for us to ask too inquisitively, for
God is not in duty bound to give us an account for all that He does.

4 But this is worthy of consideration, when the purity of the doctrine was
not being preserved through the traditions and God no longer wanted to use
this way, namely, that when corruptions arose, He would
subsequently repeat, restore, and preserve through new and special
revelations the purity of that doctrine which from the beginning of the
world had been revealed and transmitted to the patriarchs — it

is worthy of observation, I say, what other way He Himself instituted and

showed at the time of Moses,

namely that by means of writings, approved and confirmed by divine

authority and testimony, the purity

of the heavenly doctrine should be propagated and preserved, in order that,

when questions or controversies would arise about the old, genuine, and
pure teaching of the patriarchs, new and special

revelations might not always have to be sought and looked for.

5 This history must be diligently considered. It will profitably clear up and

simplify the present controversy concerning the Holy Scripture by showing
how the Scripture itself began. History shows —

and I think this must be noted especially — that God not only instituted this
way and method of preserving and retaining the purity of the heavenly
doctrine by means of the divinely inspired Scriptures

but that He also by His own act and example initiated, dedicated, and
consecrated that way and method

when He Himself first wrote the words of the Decalog. Therefore the first
beginning of Holy Scripture

must have God Himself as the author.

But we are speaking of the divinely inspired Scriptures. We shall not
dispute concerning those things

which Josephus reports as having been inscribed on pillars before the

Flood. Neither does the apocryphal book of Enoch belong into this
discussion, concerning which Hilary, writing on Ps. 132, says: “What is not
contained in the book of the Law, that we do not even need to know.” Some
are of

the opinion that Moses found the story of Job with his father-in-law Jethro
in the land of Midian and that he brought it with him to the children of
Israel in Egypt, in order that they might learn from the example of Job to
bear the oppression of Pharaoh patiently. But this is said without sure
testimonies and

proofs. The Jews say that the Book of Genesis was written by Moses before
God wrote the words of the

Decalog, because in Ex. 24:7, mention is made of the “book of the

covenant” before the advent of the

tables of the Decalog. But they do not notice that in sacred history much is
related by way of anticipation. … For that book which is mentioned in Ex.
24:7 was the book of the old covenant, which

God concluded on Mt. Sinai with the children of Israel, as is plainly written
in Heb. 9:19. But when God, according to Ex. 34:1, wrote the words of the
Decalog on tablets, Moses had not yet written the

book of the covenant but only first received the command to write at that
time. There is therefore no doubt that what is reported in Ex. 24:7
concerning the writing and dedication of the book of the covenant was done
after those things which are described in Ex. 34:1, so that God wrote the
Decalog on

tablets before Moses wrote his books.

I am not ignorant of the fact that various things are disputed concerning the
book of the wars of the

Lord, which Moses mentions in Num. 21:14. He uses the future tense: “It
shall be said in the book of

the wars of the Lord what was done in the Red Sea.” 6 And when Joshua
10:13 quotes from the book of Jashar, this cannot be some antediluvian
book, for it deals with the history which occurred under Joshua.

But I will not while away the time with either the fables or the strange
stories of the Jews, such as this, that the Law was written before the
foundation of the world in fiery black letters on a background of white fire.
Nor does the city which was, as it were, a city full of books among the
Canaanites (Joshua

15:15–16) belong into this context. 7 Our discussion deals with the books of
the divinely inspired Scripture, which God wanted handed down to
posterity and preserved.

6 I have related these things in order that it might be observed from the
divinely inspired Scriptures, which God wanted preserved and made
available for posterity, that nothing was written before the tables

of the Decalog, which were written by the finger of God. It does much to
shed light on the dignity and

authority of Holy Scripture that God Himself not only instituted and
commanded the plan of

comprehending the heavenly doctrine in writing but that He also initiated,

dedicated, and consecrated it

by writing the words of the Decalog with His own fingers. For if the writing
of the sacred books had

first been begun by men, an exclusion of more than two thousand years
could have been argued, where
in the better times of the world and among the most outstanding patriarchs
the doctrine of the divine Word was transmitted without writing, by the
living voice. Therefore God Himself with His own fingers

made a beginning of writing in order that He might show how much

importance is to be attached to this

method, according to which the purity of the doctrine is to be preserved to

posterity by writings.

For the fact that He took tablets of stone on which to write the words of the
Decalog there is another

reason, which is explained 2 Cor. 3.

7 In order that those things which were either to be written through men of
God, adorned for this by miracles and divine testimonies, or to be approved
by them after they had been written, should not have

a lesser authority or no authority at all for the confirmation of dogmas and

the refutation of errors, God chose not to write the whole Law Himself, but,
having written the words of the Decalog, He gave Moses the command that
he should write the remainder from His dictation. And in order that the
people

of God might be certain that this Scripture of Moses was not introduced by
the will of man but was divinely inspired, God gave the testimony of Moses
authority through many mighty miracles both

before and after the writing, and during the writing itself.

8 We have thus shown two things from the most ancient sacred history: (1)
that the purity of the heavenly doctrine was not preserved always and
everywhere through tradition by the living voice but was repeatedly
corrupted and adulterated; (2) in order that new and special revelations
might not always
be necessary for restoring and retaining purity of the doctrine, God
instituted another method under Moses, namely, that the doctrine of the
Word of God should be comprehended in writing.

9 This is how the Scripture began. Now that this has been shown, it remains
that we consider further what use God wanted us to make of the Scripture,
and what was to be its dignity and authority. Because

the history is clear, we shall be content merely to list the passages.

Moses included in four books not only the history of his own time, the
exodus from Egypt, and what

happened during the 40 years in the desert, but his plan was chiefly to write
the doctrine of the Law, which God delivered to the people of Israel on Mt.
Sinai in the desert. Besides, in the first book, he summed up the chief points
of the doctrine and faith of the patriarchs, which they had received by
tradition, on the basis of the revelation of God Himself from the beginning
of the world almost down to

his own time, and which they had also professed.

God commanded that the tables of the Decalog, written by God’s own hand,
should be deposited in

the ark of the convenant, which was in the holy of holies in the tabernacle.
And Moses commanded that

his own writings, composed by divine inspiration, should be put into the
side of the ark (Deut. 31:25–

26). The custody and preservation of this deposit he entrusted to the priests,
the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all
the elders of Israel. He also ordered that the king should have with him a
copy of the Law, written according to that which was before the face of the
priests and Levites, lest he depart from it either to the right hand or to the
left (Deut. 17: 18–20). He also commanded that the people should write
these words on the posts, the doors, the lintel, and the gates of
their houses. (Deut. 6:9 and 11:20)

God also expressly shows the use of the Law in Deut. 31:10–13, where He
commands that it be read

before all Israel, men and women, children and strangers, that, hearing, they
may learn, keep, and fulfill all the words of this Law. … And finally he
says: “Place this book in the side of the ark of the covenant

that it may be to you a testimony against you. For I know that after my
death you will depart from the

way which I have taught you.”

10 These testimonies of the Scripture show how, after these sacred books
had been written, the church of the children of Israel was a pillar and
ground of the truth, because to them had been committed the oracles of God
(Rom. 3:2). But this did not give them license either to establish anything

arbitrarily or to impose upon the church from unwritten traditions as

dogmas for faith things other and

different from those which had been written. They were commanded to be
the guardians of the Scripure,

in which God by His divine inspiration had caused to be committed to

writing the heavenly doctrine, which had been committed to the patriarchs
from the beginning of the world and which had been revealed to Moses. It
was not His will that the sacred books should lie buried in a corner of the
tabernacle, but that they should show from this Scripture to seekers and to
the ignorant what doctrine

had been divinely revealed and handed down to the patriarchs and to
Moses, namely, the true, genuine,

and pure voice of the heavenly doctrine. If they departed from the
commandments of God, this Scripture was to be a testimony (Deut. 31:26).
Therefore Moses commanded a copy of the Law to be
written, that it might be canon, norm, and rule from which they were not to
depart … (Deut. 17:18–20).

And God magnificently glorified and commended this custodianship of His

Word by the building, carrying, and service connected with the splendid
tabernacle.

11 However, also this observation must be added. The remaining

descendants of Noah, dispersed through all lands, had without doubt
retained many things from what had successively been told them

by their elders from the tradition of the fathers, even though this had been
corrupted, as also in later

times such traces of the traditions, though badly corrupted, were found and
noted in the religions of the heathen by ecclesiastical writers. And there is
no doubt that, since they did not want to appear to possess the Word of God
in lesser measure than the children of Israel, they ostentatiously countered
with charters and the pretext of traditions received directly from the
patriarchs. What if they at that time had had an advocate like Andrada,
Pighius, or Lindanus? Surely they would insolently have made sport

of that glorious ordinance of God concerning the Scripture transmitted

through Moses!

What conclusion is to be drawn from all this? Is it likely that the patriarchs,
both before and after the

Flood, to whom a very long life was granted, said no more concerning the
divinely revealed doctrine within the space of 2,300 years until the death of
Joseph than what is contained in the few narrow pages

of the first Book of Moses?

But surely what these men talked about repeatedly and with far more words,
because they had received it from God, was no less the Word of God than
what was briefly written down by Moses in his
first book about the teaching and faith of the patriarchs. Nor should it be
thought that those things which the patriarchs treated more fully were of so
little importance that they can easily be neglected, if only

we hold fast to the things which Moses put down in writing. What is there
that is advanced in our time

by the papalists against the authority of the Scripture in behalf of the

traditions that the descendants of Ham and Japheth could not also have
appealed to, seeing they defended their religion with the charter of

tradition, since they could not do it from Scripture? For what Pighius says
in derogation of the Epistle to Philemon could also be said about the book
of Moses, namely, that there were far greater mysteries in

the teaching of the patriarchs than the things which Moses tells about sheep,
the quarrels of slaves, the

contentions of women, and similar things. But there was at that time one
simple answer, namely, that it

was true that during so many years the patriarchs had spoken far more
words about the heavenly doctrine than could be comprehended in the one
very short book of Moses; but that of all the things which the patriarchs did
and taught by divine inspiration those were chosen to be written down
which

were judged to be sufficient for posterity for faith and for rules for godly
living. There is no doubt that God Himself is the author of this judgment or
selection. For what Moses writes in the first chapter as

having been done and said before the creation of man he could have learned
from no man but solely by

the revelation of God. It is therefore certain, and I believe that not even the
papalists will deny it, that those things which God judged to be necessary
for posterity concerning the doctrine and faith of the patriarchs are
contained in the writings of Moses. And surely there can be no doubt that
certain stories

concerning the sayings of the patriarchs which were neither wrong nor
useless must have remained in

the memory of the godly. But these had to be neither contrary to nor
different from, but in harmony with, the things which Moses wrote, so that
the writing of Moses might be the rule and standard according to which
whatever was said concerning the doctrine of the patriarchs and of Moses
should be

tried and examined.

I have worked out this comparison because it furnishes, on the basis of the
first origin of the Scripture, a refutation of all the arguments which are now
spun together by the papalists for the traditions against the Scriptures. It is a
refutation which they themselves are compelled to admit and to

employ when there is dispute concerning the Old Testament writings.

Their contention that matters stand otherwise in the case of the New
Testament writings we shall refute later.

These things concerning the first origin of the Scripture are particularly
pertinent here. Now we shall

briefly touch on what remains concerning the doctrine and Scripture of the
Old Testament.

12 After the time of Moses God raised up prophets for whose doctrine and
testimony He gained faith

and authority by mighty miracles, as the story of Elijah and Elisha clearly
shows. And to Joshua God

said (Joshua 3:7): “This day I will begin to exalt you in the sight of all
Israel, that they may know that, as I was with Moses, so I will be with you.”
But although these men were confirmed by miracles, they
did not have power to assert or determine other things concerning the
doctrine of the patriarchs and of Moses that were different from or contrary
to what had been committed to the books of Moses. They

did, however, by divine revelation add clearer interpretations as the

Morning Star of the New Testament

approached ever more closely. Also they themselves wrote the sum and
chief parts of their entire teaching, as much as God judged necessary for
posterity. These writings they placed with the sacred books of Moses, that
is, beside the ark. Thus it is written concerning Joshua (ch. 24:26) that he
wrote all his words in the book of the Law of the Lord, which had been
placed beside the ark of the covenant (Deut. 31:26). According to 1 Sam.
10:25, Samuel wrote the law of the kingdom in a book and deposited it
before the Lord, that is, where the ark of the covenant was. In Is. 30:8 God
says to the prophet: “Now go, write it before them on a tablet and inscribe it
in a book, that it may be for the time

to come as a witness forever.”

How the prophets were accustomed to write the chief parts of their
teaching, which were by

inspiration of God to come down to posterity, can be gathered from Hab.

2:2: “Write the vision; make it

plain upon tablets, so he may run who reads it.” And Is. 8:1 says: “Take a
large tablet and write upon it

in common characters.” Similar examples are found in Jer. 36:2; 45:1;

51:60.

In this way the canon of the prophetic Scripture came into being. For Ezek.
13:9 says about false prophets: “They shall not be enrolled in the Scripture
of Israel.” But about the canon of Scripture we shall have to speak later.

13 This account concerning the times of the prophets, which I wanted, for
the sake of brevity, merely to touch upon rather than to explain, clearly
shows how God with paternal solicitude took foresight for

His church, that the coming generations might be able to have, preserve,
and propagate the prophetic doctrine genuine, pure, and natural, without the
admixture of leaven, without adulteration and corruption. He wanted it
comprehended in writing, lest a strange and counterfeit doctrine be foisted
upon the church under the name of tradition handed down by and received
from the prophets. If someone objects that Isaiah during the 80 years of his
ministry certainly preached more than is contained in the 66 short chapters
which we have, the same objection can be raised even more plausibly

with respect to other prophets of whose writings none are extant. …

Certainly, the Word of God was to

be received with equal reverence whether it was preached or written. A true

and firm reply is the following: Whatever of the teaching of the prophets
God judged necessary for the faith and piety of posterity, He caused to be
written and preserved for posterity. I repeat this argument so often in order

that the papalists may see on what kind of foundations their objections are
built. They cannot and will

not dare to deny what is most certainly true, that although more was spoken
by the patriarchs, Moses,

and the prophets than has been written, nevertheless all that God judged
necessary of the doctrine of the

patriarchs of Moses, and of the prophets, for the knowledge of posterity is

contained in the Scripture of

the Old Testament.

Our opponents are also compelled to admit this, that whatever is brought up
by the Jews, under whatever title, must be examined and measured
according to the norm of this Scripture, in order that whatever agrees with it
may be approved and whatever is strange or not in agreement disapproved.
…
The foundation on which this true opinion rests will show us the way to
refute and overthrow all objections of the papalists concerning traditions.

Whenever Christ and the apostles in the New Testament assert that the
prophets said something, that

God spoke by the mouth of the prophets, or when they call a saying
prophetic, they are not directing us

to silent unwritten traditions; they mean that which is written in the

Scripture. Lindanus establishes the armor of the whole papal religion on
this saying of Peter: “The Word of God is what was preached to

you.” But he contends the apostles preached more during so many years
than could be comprehended in

the small codex of the New Testament. Therefore more is to be believed in

the New Testament than is

contained in the apostolic writings.

However, the same could also be said for the same reason of the doctrine of
the Old Testament, where these words occur repeatedly: “We have heard it
with our ears, our fathers have declared it to us; they

transmitted it to their children after them,” etc. There is no doubt that much
of the sermons and speeches of the prophets was preserved in the hearts of
the pious and communicated to their descendants. But are

the fables of the Talmud to be received over and above the Scripture of the
Old Testament on that account? Let us rather follow the judgment of the
truly pious who lived at the time of the prophets!

From them we shall know how to meet this objection.

14 For when controversies arose, and corruptions appeared, they simply

referred to the norm of Scripture. So when at the time of Ahaz the Altar of
the Lord had been removed and the altar of Damascus put in place of it and
the saddest corruptions held sway, which were put forth under the title
and pretext of revelations, Isaiah simply says (Is. 8:20): “To the teaching
and to the testimony! But if

they speak not according to this word, there will be no dawn for them.” The
reader sees and acknowledges how the Scripture was used in the Old
Testament as norm, canon, measuring instrument,

and the surest rule in controversies about the doctrine and that it was written
for this use, as we have

shown above from Moses.

When Jehoshaphat was about to restore the true religion which had fallen
down and become

contaminated with superstitions, it is written that he recalled it to the former

ways of his father David.

But hear according to what rule and norm the corruptions were cast out and
the purity of the doctrine of

the fathers was restored. According to 2 Chron. 17:7–9, he sent some of his
princes, priests, and Levites, who were to teach the people in Judah.
“Having the book of the law of the Lord with them, they went

about through all the cities of Judah and taught among the people.”

Also Hezekiah, when he was about to eliminate the corruptions in doctrine

and in the worship of God

which had been brought in by Ahaz, did what was right and true before the
Lord according to the Law

(2 Chron. 31:20–21) and according to the ordinances of David. For indeed

he had the commandment of

the Lord through the hand of the prophets.

It is noteworthy also, that when Manasseh and Amon wanted to lead the
people away from the true

religion of the fathers to idolatry, they hid the book of the Law of the Lord,
lest it should be publicly

read to the people every seventh year, as Moses had commanded. For under
Josiah, Hilkiah the priest

found the book of the law of the Lord, which had been given by the hand of
Moses, in the ruins of the

temple as they were being repaired. And Josiah called together all the
elders, priests, Levites, and to all the people, from the least to the greatest,
he read all the words of the book, and he made a covenant before the Lord
and adjured all the people that they should do the things which were written
in the book

which he had read. This was the norm according to which he cleansed the
doctrine and the temple worship.

In line with this we read repeatedly in Jewish history about corruptions of

the doctrine and worship of

God: “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was
right in his own eyes.” For the

king had been commanded in Deut. 17:18 to have a copy of the divine law
with him at all times, to use

in the manner reported of Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah. And when

Joash was made king a very

beautiful ceremony was used, according to 2 Chron. 23:11. For when the
crown had been placed on his

head, there was given to him the testimony of the Law, and so he was
anointed king. In sum, whenever
the prophets rebuke the people about corruptions in doctrine, they say that
there has been a departure

from the Law of the Lord, which certainly was contained in the Scripture.

There is also an instructive example in Ezra, which shows how errors and
abuses, which had crept in

in large numbers during the times of the exile, were corrected and emended
according to the norm of

Scripture.

15 And by this norm also Paul before King Agrippa proves that he teaches
nothing false or foreign

(Acts 26:22): “Saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would
come to pass.” Abraham

also sends the rich man from special revelations to hearing Moses and the
prophets.

Lest anyone should understand this of the unwritten traditions, Christ, in

Luke 24:46, when He wanted to appeal to the testimony of the doctrine of
the fathers and prophets from the beginning of the

world, interprets the Scripture and says: “Thus it is written.” This testimony
should be diligently considered. Christ had already entered into His glory
through His resurrection and could have brought

to remembrance many things concerning the true unwritten traditions of the

patriarchs and prophets; for

He Himself was the one who spoke with the fathers. But He adduces only
what is written. For He wanted to attest the fact that in what has been
written concerning the doctrine of the patriarchs and prophets all is
contained that is necessary and sufficient when the question is asked what
the doctrine
and faith of the patriarchs and prophets was. And this norm, namely, the
Scripture of the Old Testament,

had such great authority for the attestation and confirmation of the dogmas
that Christ Himself was not

ashamed to prove His teaching by testimonies from the Old Testament

Scripture. Paul in Rom. 1:1–2

affirms that he is preaching the Gospel which has been promised by the
prophets in the sacred Scriptures. And in Acts 17:11 the preaching of the
apostles was examined according to the Scriptures, to

see whether it was correct. This examination is praised by the Holy Ghost.

16 I have long felt that Andrada will say that this discussion does not
belong here, that this discussion is not concerning the books of the Old
Testament but concerning those of the New Testament. However,

I know quite well why they like to bypass the mention of the use and
authority of the Old Testament Scriptures. They sense that by that mere
mention all their arguments which they heap up against the Scripture of the
New Testament are overthrown and destroyed. For this reason I wanted to
repeat this

reminder of the first origin of the Holy Scripture a little more fully, for this
method of committing the

heavenly doctrine to writing was not first invented and instituted in the New
Testament by the apostles,

but they received it from the ancients and used it for the same reason and
purpose for which the Scripture was given when it first came into being.
This must be diligently observed.

17 Thus we have shown: (1) what was the first beginning of the divinely
inspired Scripture, and who is its first author; (2) on what occasion and for
what reason Holy Scripture was instituted, namely, because the purity of
doctrine was not being preserved by the traditions but under their name and
cover

many strange and false things were mixed with it; (3) what use God wanted
to have made of the Scripture, namely, that it should be the norm and rule of
faith, and of decisions in controversies and disputes concerning religion, as
we have proved by many examples; (4) that by divine inspiration
summaries of the chief points from the teaching of the patriarchs and
prophets were selected to be written because they were judged by God to be
necessary and sufficient for posterity; (5) what importance is to be attached
to the objection which is raised against the perfection and the sufficiency of
the Scripture of the Old Testament, namely, that the doctrine was delivered
more frequently orally and

with many more words by the patriarchs and prophets than could be
comprehended in a few small books.

18 These points, when rightly considered, most beautifully place the dispute
concerning the Scripture of the New Testament in the right light. For, that
the evangelists and apostles saw to it that their doctrine was written down,
this they took from the very first origin of the Scripture. And from this we
can best

judge what the reason, cause, and use of the New Testament Scripture is, as
we shall presently show.

But first we must note a few things concerning the origin of the traditions
which are either patched on

the Scripture on the plea that it is incomplete, or set up in opposition to it on

the plea that it is ambiguous and obscure.

5 Chemnitz lived and wrote before the period when Biblical and historical
studies began to correct

this type of chronology. Luther had done similar calculations. The best
known exponent of this kind of chronology was, of course, Archbishop
Ussher, 1581–1656.
6 Chemnitz’ use of the future tense dicetur (“it shall be said”) appears to be
based on a faulty reading of the text. The Vulgate has the present tense
dicitur. This agrees with the Septuagint, and so many interpreters from
Luther to Smith-Goodspeed translate the Hebrew text.

7 The reference is to Kiriath-sepher. The name means “City of the Book.”

SECTION III

Concerning the Similarity and Affinity of the Traditions of the

Papalists With Those

of the Pharisees and of the Talmud

1 Concerning the traditions of the papalists we shall speak at the proper

place. But as it is profitable to consider the first beginning of the Holy
Scripture, because everything is judged best from its beginning,

so also this observation will teach us many things, that the dispute
concerning unwritten traditions, which are either patched on the Scripture
or set up in opposition to it, did not begin recently but is identical with the
weapons employed by Jewish treachery against the sword of the Spirit,
which is the

Word of God in the Scripture. There is no doubt that there were contentions
concerning Scripture and

traditions also in the earliest times, when the descendants of Ham and
Japheth sought to excuse and defend their religions outside of Scripture and
contrary to it under name and guise of traditions which

they maintained had been handed down to them from the fathers. But we
shall speak briefly about those

things only which are evident.

2 The Gospel history clearly shows that the purity of the sound doctrine of
the Word of God had been corrupted … among the Jews at the time of
Christ. But when we inquire concerning the origin and cause
of these corruptions (for the Jews possessed, read, and expounded the
sacred books), the Gospel history

replies that they were due to false and worthless traditions. For where the
Scripture was clear, as in the case of the Second and Fourth
Commandments, they set up their traditions against it so that they bent

the words of Scripture in the direction of the traditions and took from
tradition the interpretation under this charter and pretext: “It was said to the
men of old.” Examples are found Matt. 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38,

43; 15:1–9; 23. Over and above this they had many vain traditions outside
of and beyond the Scripture,

and they imagined that the observance of these was so necessary that they
either preferred them to the

written commands of God or at least placed them on the same level with
them. See Mark 7:2–13; Luke

11:37–52; 18:12; Matt. 23, etc.

3 That this was at that time the source of all corruption in the doctrine of the
Pharisees the Son of God showed in many places. From where do you think
this persuasion concerning the traditions arose if

not from this, that they judged that not everything that is necessary for faith
and godly living is contained in the Old Testament Scripture? There is no
doubt that much of what the patriarchs and prophets said that was neither
useless nor false persisted in the memory of the godly in the true antiquity.
But when the pure doctrine had begun to wane among their descendants,
there finally arose

this persuasion, that because the patriarchs and prophets had done and
spoken more than was written,

those things outside of Scripture which were current under the name of
traditions should be accepted and esteemed with equal reverence and pious
affection, even though they did not agree with the Scripture or were even in
opposition to it. Let us consider well how the devil is accustomed to lie in
ambush against the purity of the doctrine when he is not able to destroy the
Scripture entirely, as he tried to do through Antiochus, according to Macc.
1. He pretends with specious arguments that besides the

Scripture also the unwritten traditions are necessary, and that they are
necessary in such a way that these traditions are not to be examined
according to the Scripture but that, on the contrary, the words of the

Scripture are to be bent to agree with the unwritten traditions, although God
had for this very reason entrusted the Scripture to the church at the very
beginning, as we have shown above, that it should be

the norm and rule, lest false, counterfeit, and useless things under any title
or pretext whatsoever be

foisted on the church.

This plan and arrangement of God the devil cunningly overturned among
the Jews under the specious

pretext, that without doubt anything which the patriarchs and prophets were
sure to have taught and done, even if it had not been written, should
nevertheless be worthy of equal authority with the Scripture. Under this
pretext the enemy of the truth later palmed off some uncertain and fictitious
things.

4 When Christ disputed with the Pharisees concerning traditions outside of

and beyond the Scripture, He could easily have brought to remembrance
other true sayings and deeds of the patriarchs and prophets than those which
are written, and He could have confirmed the truth of His narration with
miracles. And this He would without doubt have done had He judged that
not all that is necessary and

sufficient is contained in the Scriptures.

There were, then, two questions: (1) Is anything to be admitted and
accepted concerning the teaching

of the patriarchs and prophets beside those things which are written, that is,
something that has gone forth and been accepted from tradition by word of
mouth which cannot be proved from Scripture and is

not in harmony with it? (2) Were the traditions which were given out under
that name by the Pharisees

true?

Christ not only refutes and rejects those traditions of the Pharisees as false
and useless but simply directs the Pharisees themselves to the Scripture
without substituting other traditions concerning the doctrine of “the men of
old” as necessary and mandatory beside Scripture. And the apostle says in 1

Peter 1:16–18: “You were ransomed from the futile ways which you
inherited from the tradition of your

fathers not with gold or silver but with the precious blood of the Lamb
without blemish, Christ; therefore be holy in all your conduct, as it is
written.”

Thus the corruptions of the purity of the doctrine among the Pharisees had
their origin from the traditions which in part they patched on the Scripture
and in part set up in opposition to the Scripture as necessary. And Christ
restored the pristine and genuine purity of the prophetic doctrine in this
way, that He rejected and refuted the traditions and led the church back to
the Scripture. This is clear from the Gospel history. Irenaeus, [ contra
haereses] Bk. 4, ch. 12, says that in his time there was in existence the
Pharisaic law concerning traditions, in which they took away some things
from the written law of God,

added some things, and interpreted some things as they pleased. These
traditions he calls “watered,”
according to Is. 1:22, because they mingled the leaven of the traditions with
the purity of the Word of

God. And he says that they imagine that the observance of these traditions
is necessary according to the

Law itself.

This description should be noted, for it will show the image and likeness of
the traditions which the

papalists impose on the church. For they, too, pretend that also the
observance of the unwritten traditions is necessary according to the
Scripture of the New Testament.

5 Andrada and his friends will object that it is an intolerable insult that their
traditions are compared with those of the Pharisees and Jews. They will say
that the Pharisees and the later rabbis invented and

fabricated their traditions, but that the traditions of the papalists were
received from the apostles themselves, preserved through a sure and
continuous succession of bishops, and handed down to our times from hand
to hand. However, the Jews will by no means concede that they have their
traditions

without reliable authority, through the inventions of men. They fabricate a

long, continuous line of unbroken succession, according to which the
traditions are said to have been given by God Himself, received by Moses,
transmitted in good faith to posterity, and handed down from hand to hand.
And if

the Talmud had not been written beforehand, I would surely have thought
that the rabbis had taken this

theory over from the papalists and had accommodated it to their traditions.
For so great is the similarity that there can be no doubt that both the fictions
of the Talmudists and of the papalists concerning traditions have one and
the same architect and maker, namely, him who sows and mixes tares with
the

good seed.

The Talmudists embellish their fictions by pretending that Moses on Mount

Sinai received from God

not only what he wrote but also a mystical and secret exposition of the Law,
which he neither wrote nor

wanted written but handed down only orally and recommended that it be
delivered to posterity from hand to hand. And they say that both are the
Word of God, to be received and respected with equal reverence and
devotion.

See what an illustrious succession they weave by which this tradition is

supposed to have been preserved so that there can be no doubt as to its
trustworthiness. Moses, they say, delivered it to Eli the priest, Eli to the
prophet Samuel, Samuel to King David, David to the prophet Ahiah, Ahiah
to Elijah,

Elijah to Elisha, Elisha to the high priest Jehoiada, Jehoiada to the prophet
Zechariah, Zechariah to Hosea, Hosea to Amos, who delivered it to Isaiah;
Isaiah to Micah, Micah to Joel, Joel to the prophet

Nahum, Nahum to Habakkuk, Habakkuk to Zephaniah, Zephaniah to

Jeremiah, Jeremiah to the scribe

Baruch, Baruch to Ezra. From Ezra they establish a continuous succession

of most illustrious men to Hillel, Simon the Just, Gamaliel, and others, until
out of that preservation a beginning was made to put

it into writing. From this the Talmud was finally produced. A detailed
description of this is found with

Petrus Galatinus.
6 This is indeed a far different kind of succession from that which is
claimed by the papalists with respect to the line and number of Roman
popes, in whose catalog there are many who were more truly

monsters than men.

Now let us assume that we are dealing with a right-thinking Jew who has
rejected the Talmudic traditions and desires to accept and believe only what
is in agreement with the Holy Scriptures and can

be proved from them, and we confront him with the argument of Pighius:
“How do you, a Jew, know

that what is written in the books of Moses and the prophets is true, when
you have not seen the original

manuscripts? And even if you were to see them, you could not8 assert
something with certainty on the basis of your inspection. How can you be
certain that these books are not spurious or adulterated but contain the true
and sound doctrine of the Word of God as it was divinely revealed? This
cannot be known for certain in any way except by the witness of those who
are mentioned above, who by a continuous line of succession have
preserved these books and transmitted them to posterity from hand

to hand, as it were. If, therefore, you accept the sacred codices on the basis
of their tradition, or on their testimony, how dare you repudiate the
remaining traditions which have been transmitted to posterity by

those same persons in a definite line of succession? Or, if you begin to

entertain doubts with respect to

the Talmudic traditions, also the certainty and authority of the Scripture
itself, which the tradition and testimony of the synagog commends to you,
will become shaky and collapse.”

Here I should like to hear from Andrada what he judges a Jew who desires
to extricate himself from
the Talmudic tradition should and could answer to this objection. I do not
believe that he is so insane as to believe that the Biblical and the Talmudic
books are to be received with equal reverence and devotion. Therefore he
should acknowledge from this comparison already what kind of argument it
is

with which he himself fights for the papalist traditions and triumphantly
exclaims: “If we received the

sacred books through the tradition of the church, then we ought also to
receive the remaining traditions

in the same way.”

7 But this must be explained later. Here I only wanted to show the great
affinity and similarity between the Talmudists and the papists 9 when they
dispute concerning the unwritten traditions outside and beyond Scripture.
The very same spirit, which under the veil of traditions has set snares for
the Old

Testament, tries also in the New Testament to foist on the church under the
name of tradition things that

cannot be proved by the Scripture, and he employs the same trick so

consistently on both sides that it is

easy to recognize one and the same author.

How great the power of this error is is manifest. For this persuasion alone
about the unwritten

traditions, particularly because it is set forth with such a plausible show of a

succession of the most outstanding men among the people of God, to which
the limitation and custom of so long a time is added, leads and holds captive
the poor Jewish people in the saddest state of blindness, so that Rabbi

Abraham of Spain can say concerning the opinions of the rabbis: “It is
proper for us to subscribe to their words because all their words are words
of the Cabala. And we walk along and feel our way like blind

men along a wall that we may support ourselves on it. And even though it
appears to you that our words

are true and right, nevertheless, we must cast this truth to the ground,
because the truth is with them.”

And Lyra, on Deut. 17, quotes the Hebrew gloss: “Whatever is proposed in
this way must be accepted,

even though they should say that right is left.” The same author sets the
same snares, in which he has

entangled the Jews, also for us, woven out of the cords of man-made
traditions.

8 The circumstances of the time at which the Jewish Talmud began to be

written, when rightly considered, will show why the Jewish rabbis fight so
stubbornly for the Talmudic traditions. Before that

time many Jews, convinced by the light of the Scriptures, had gone over to
the Christian religion. The

rabbis saw that they could not obtain what they wanted if they had to fight
solely with the weapons of

the Scripture, therefore they prepared other defenses.

The writing of the Talmud, which comprises the traditions, was begun about
the year A. D. 150.

When they noticed its success, it was afterward almost endlessly enlarged.
After those times it rarely happened that any Jew was converted to the
Christian faith, because they had become entangled in the

net of the traditions and had been turned away from the Scriptures.
We have spoken briefly concerning the Scripture of the Old Testament to
show what was the first beginning, what the reason for, and what the use of,
Holy Scripture. We also added the observation how

the Pharisees and later the Talmudists filled the Jewish church with
unspeakable errors and superstitions

because they contended that over and above the Scripture of Moses and the
prophets also the unwritten

traditions were to be received with equal reverence and devotion, even

when they cannot be proved from the Scripture. We have also recited
certain Talmudic fictions concerning the traditions on account

of the affinity which they have with the arguments of the papalists, because
a silent comparison of these

may take the place of an open refutation. Now we proceed to the Scripture
of the New Testament and to

the disputes of our time with respect to the traditions.

8 The reading nec si videres posses (Frankfort 1578, 1606, 1609) seems
preferable to haec si videres posses (Preuss, 1861). The translations of
Nigrinus (1576) and Frank (1875) also follow this reading.

9 This is the only instance which the translator was able to discover in
which Chemnitz uses the pejorative term “papists” (Papistarum), which
Protestants at that time used quite generally. Chemnitz, however, almost
always uses the merely descriptive term, Pontificii, which we have sought
consistently to render “papalists,” or “adherents of the papal party.”

SECTION IV

Concerning the New Testament Scripture

1 I see that I am exceeding the bounds of brevity which might have sufficed
for the plan of the examination in this matter of the Scripture, but the honest
reader will readily forgive me when he considers the reason. The method of
debate on the part of the papalists is far different now than it was at the time
of Eck, Emser, and others like them. These men did not refuse to fight with
us with the weapons of the Scripture. Pighius, however, has perceived that
this arrangement has done the papal kingdom more harm than good.
Therefore he has shown a different and shorter way by which, provided

they stuck to it, they could obtain practically anything without trouble. It
consists in this that they bring together every oratorical device and then
declaim loudly about the shortness, the incompleteness, the insufficiency,
ambiguity, and obscurity of the Scripture and strenuously fight for the
necessity, authority, perfection, certainty, and clarity of the unwritten
traditions. He saw that in those things which cannot be defended from the
Scripture (and these make for the greater part of the papal kingdom) victory
would

only in this way be neither in doubt nor difficult. And this plan the papalist
writers who followed Pighius have all embraced with all their might, with
the result that now in whole books they do almost

nothing but dispute against the Scripture in behalf of the unwritten

traditions. Into this fortress also the Council of Trent places all its resources
and therefore its very salvation. Necessity, therefore, demands

that we speak a little more at length concerning the authority of the

Scripture against forged traditions.

On the remaining points we shall later be briefer and keep our speech
within the limits of the examination.

2 Because the controversy between us is chiefly concerning the New

Testament Scripture, we shall now speak of this. This whole dispute can be
readily understood on the basis of the first beginning of

the Holy Scripture in the Old Testament, which we have stated above,
namely, for what reasons and for

what purpose the doctrine of the New Testament was comprehended in

writing. Also our opponents notice and sense this. But see their insidious
tricks! Since they cannot untie this Gordian knot, as it were, they simply cut
it with this two-edged ax, that in the Scripture of the Old Testament all is
indeed

contained that God considered necessary and sufficient for posterity of the
doctrine of the patriarchs and prophets, but that matters are far different
with the doctrine of the New Testament. They say that God

Himself constituted its nature in such a way that it should be reduced to

writing neither on tables nor on paper, neither with pen nor with ink, nor in
any other way whatsoever, but that it should be entrusted

only orally to the minds of the hearers and so be preserved and handed
down personally. And they insist

that this is the meaning of Jer. 31:33: “I will put my law within them, and I
will write it upon their hearts,” and of what Paul says in 2 Cor. 3:3: “You
are our letter, written by us not with ink but with the Spirit of the living
God; not on tablets of stone but on the fleshy tablets of the human heart.”

3 What shall we reply to this? We shall simply state the case. If God had …
ordained that the doctrine of Christ and of the apostles should be
transmitted and preserved without writing, solely by oral tradition, we
would want reverently to be content with this way which, as we have shown
above, God

employed in the beginning of the world for over two thousand years. For
He alone knows best how He

can most usefully provide for the welfare of the church. But the question is
whether God so ordered it

that the doctrine of Christ and of the apostles should not be consigned to
writing, but should be handed

down personally, without writing, solely by word of mouth. To be sure, the

papalists say that God
affirms this through Jeremiah and Paul. But because the papalists have
rendered their faith suspect to the church in many respects, we according to
the command of Christ in John 5:39 and the example of

the Bereans in Acts 17:11 will search the Scriptures, to see whether these
things are as the papalists maintain.

We see at once that it is obviously not true what the papalists trump up
concerning the meaning of

Jeremiah and Paul, for a number of books were written by the apostles
themselves concerning the doctrine of the New Testament, which they
would undoubtedly not have done if what the papalists falsely put into the
passage were what God means in the statement of Jeremiah.

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews adduces this text of Jeremiah in
the midst of his writing, while he is committing the doctrine of the New
Testament to writing. And Paul had already written both

letters to the Thessalonians and the first to the Corinthians when he said:
“Not with ink but by the Spirit of God” in 2 Cor. 3:3; yes, he was not
transmitting this orally, but he was writing it. Therefore it is clear beyond
all controversy that the apostles did not understand the statement in Jer.
31:33, and Paul his own

saying in 2 Cor. 3:3, in the way the papalists imagine, namely, that the
doctrine of Christ and of the apostles does not tolerate being comprehended
and transmitted in writing.

4 We shall be pardoned if we judge that the apostles understood the

meaning of Jeremiah and of Paul better than do the papalists. But they will
object that they do not mean it as though simply nothing at all concerning
the doctrine of Christ and of the apostles should have been committed to
writing … rather,

that some things indeed needed to be, or at least could be, written, but not
all that is necessary and sufficient; that many, and indeed the principal
things, had to be left for the unwritten traditions.
I hear and understand what the papalists say. But the question is whether
what they say is the meaning of Jeremiah and Paul in the texts that are
quoted. I look at the statement of Jeremiah, and I do

not find that he says that the law of the New Testament should be written
partly on paper and partly in

the hearts; nor do I see that Paul says concerning the doctrine of Christ and
of the apostles that certain things are to be written with ink on tablets or on
paper, and certain things by the Spirit of God in the

hearts. They speak indefinitely. We do not concede to the papalists that they
may with impunity mock

the church with their arbitrary interpretations outside of and against the
words of the text.

5 If therefore someone, together with the papalists, wants to twist the words
of Jeremiah and Paul violently to make them apply to the question whether
the doctrine of Christ and of the apostles should

or can be comprehended in writing or whether it is to be preserved and

transmitted without writing through oral tradition, it is certain and clear that
by such an exposition no other meaning can be gained

than this, that the doctrine of Christ and of the apostles is to be proclaimed,
transmitted, and preserved simply without any writing whatever, only by a
tradition that is not written and must not be written. And

if anyone should try to commit anything of that doctrine to writing, this

would be done contrary to its

nature and character, yes, against the will and ordinance of God.

That this explanation and meaning is false the apostles have shown by their
own action. For they committed their doctrine to writing, and that, as
Irenaeus says, by the will of God.
6 Therefore the papalists have been cast out of this fortress by the clear
light of the truth, unless they should be willing to rave against better
knowledge. I ask the reader to consider attentively what an inept
comparison they make between the Old and the New Testament, about
which Jeremiah and Paul dispute

most seriously, if they want to defend their opinion stubbornly. For if they
understand the Old Testament

to be about the doctrine of the patriarchs and prophets until the time of
Christ (which, according to Augustine, is said improperly, since it should
rather be called “the old instrument”), the doctrine was certainly transmitted
and handed on through 2,454 years without writing, by means of oral
tradition.

From the writing of the Law until the ministry of Christ there are 1,538
years. Therefore the people of

the Old Testament had the heavenly doctrine 916 years longer unwritten
than in writing. But the doctrine of Christ and of the apostles began to be
committed to writing after it had been transmitted

orally only and without writings for less than 20 years.

Let us concede to them all we can, namely, that Matthew first wrote when
Paul was already at Rome;

Paul had at that time certainly already written both epistles to the
Thessalonians, the first to Timothy,

both to the Corinthians, and the epistle to the Romans. See, now, Andrada,
how matters stand with your

argument that it was fair that the people of God under the Old Testament
should have the heavenly doctrine comprehended in writing, but that
matters were clearly different with respect to the New Testament. But if
they understand the Old Testament to be about the doctrine of the Law
which was proclaimed on Mount Sinai, certainly the precepts of the
Decalog both before and after the Flood are read in the Book of Genesis as
having been set forth by the divine voice and handed down by the
patriarchs. And Paul affirms in Rom. 2:15 that the work of the Law is by
nature written in the hearts of

all men, also of those who do not have the written Law. Let this also be
considered, what madness it would be to attribute to Jeremiah the opinion
that the difference between Old and the New Testament

consists chiefly in this, that it was fair that the doctrine of the Law should
be comprehended in writing

but that the doctrine of the Gospel should be entrusted to the hearts through
unwritten traditions. It is

therefore certain and clear that the statement of Jeremiah neither has nor
admits of that explanation and

meaning for which the papalists so hotly contend that they do not conceal
the fact that they place all their help against the Scripture and for the
unwritten traditions in it. Augustine, who in the book De spiritu et littera
explains this passage of Jeremiah and of Paul specifically and adequately,
does not mention with so much as one word this dream which the papalists
want to impose upon the church in

order to establish their newly-invented traditions against the Scripture.

In Homily 1 on Matthew, Chrysostom takes this statement of Jeremiah to

mean that for a few years

the doctrine of Christ and of the apostles was handed down without writing;
concerning this there is no

controversy between us. But he does not, as the papalists do, build on this
the claim that the nature and

character of the New Testament does not permit its teaching to be recorded
in letters and expressed in
writings, that, as Lindanus says, the nature of the Word of the Gospel
abhors writing and letters. This is the point of our dispute.

7 I will add also this observation, that from this discussion alone it can be
seen what kind of interpreters of the Scripture the papalists are. Jeremiah
and Paul are discussing by far the most important subject in those
statements, as I shall show briefly by means of the following statement of
Augustine: “The Old Testament is the doctrine of commandments written
outside of man; by it we are

taught from without, our conscience bearing witness (for the work of the
Law is written in our hearts),

what and what kind of obedience God requires of us; and it condemns those
who do not conform to this

rule; but it does not supply the strength to do what it requires. For so sad is
the corruption of man’s nature through sin that when God makes known His
will and proclaims it through the ministry, either

orally or in writing, nevertheless the old man, such as he is without the

spirit of regeneration, even when he exerts his natural powers and attempts
to perform something, cannot rightly and truly understand, embrace, and
observe the spiritual things which are demanded in the Word; most
important, he does not

by such performance keep the Law.”

This Augustine calls the Old Testament, where the heart is not renewed, and
though the work of the

Law, so far as knowledge of it is concerned, is written in the hearts, it is

nevertheless called a law written outside of man, not in the hearts, when the
hearts are not renewed to the true inner obedience.

But the New Testament is the promise of grace on account of the Son and
Mediator. With this is connected the promise and bestowal of the Holy
Spirit, who by His power and operation writes into hearts the doctrine
which is proclaimed through the ministry, whether it be orally or in writing;
that is, He illumines the mind, regenerates the will and heart, so that we can
embrace the promise concerning

the Messiah in true faith from the heart. To those who believe in His name
He gives power to become

children of God (John 1:12). And this is what Jeremiah says, that the Holy
Spirit writes the doctrine of

the Gospel into the hearts of the believers, that it may be fulfilled what He
says: “I will be their God, and they will be My people.” After that the Holy
Spirit also writes the doctrine of the Law into the hearts of the regenerate,
that the heart may have its delight in the Law according to the inner man
(Rom.

7:22) and that they may begin to obey from the heart (Rom. 6:17). This
Augustine in this discussion calls the New Testament, and he rightly asserts
that its power and efficacy were present also in the fathers at the time of the
Old Testament.

8 This most weighty and useful teaching in the statement of Jeremiah the
papalists not only pass over, but they obscure and erase it by substituting a
strange and false interpretation. For what Jeremiah is speaking about the
Holy Spirit does not work in the manner dreamed by the enthusiasts,
without means,

but through the ministry of the Word of God. But in order that the Word,
which alone is the organ of the

Spirit, may not be corrupted, or it become uncertain what that Word is, God
in the Old Testament commanded that it be comprehended in writing. We
shall presently speak of the doctrine of Christ and

of the apostles in the New Testament. So then, the Scripture of the Word of
the Gospel does not conflict

with the passage of Jeremiah.

9 It was necessary to say these things concerning the statement of Jeremiah.
For the opponents always place a foreign, twisted, corrupt, and greatly
amplified explanation of his statement in the front

battle line when they are about to fight against the Scripture of the New
Testament in behalf of their traditions. Therefore we have shown that the
statement of Jeremiah in no way either suggests or admits

of that meaning which the papalists invent against the Scripture.

10 Now that this fortress has been destroyed and we are in the open field,
the battle with the adversaries concerning the New Testament Scriptures
will be easier. What we have said concerning the

statement of Jeremiah applies also to the saying of Paul in 2 Cor. 3:3. For he
does not deny that it is the doctrine of the Gospel which he is commending
to them then with ink, on paper, in an epistle and had

commended previously. Neither does he say that, because he first converted

the Corinthians without any

writing on his part, solely through oral transmission, what he now wrote
with ink was not an instrument

of the Spirit, by which the Gospel is written into the hearts of believers.
Rather he urges this, that the Corinthians, who already with the heart
believed for righteousness and with the mouth confessed for salvation and
who, having been made new creatures, delighted in the Law of God and
obeyed it from

the heart — these, I say, he says, are the epistle of Christ, written not with
ink outwardly, without inner renewal, which belongs to the Old Testament
and to the letter which kills, but clearly expressed in the

heart, not with the powers of the old man but by the Spirit of the living
God.
11 Now we shall proceed to the New Testament Scripture itself. We are
agreed on this, that the doctrine of the New Testament … is what Christ in
the time of His flesh during His ministry proclaimed

with His own mouth, and what the apostles, once they had been led by the
Holy Spirit into all truth, preached to every creature in all the world.

This also is certain, that this doctrine which during the first few years was
preached and proclaimed

both by Christ and later by the apostles unwritten and orally was afterward
written down by the apostles.

12 Andrada, however, does not allow us to proceed to the apostolic

writings, but the moment mention is made of the earliest time, when the
doctrine of the Gospel was handed on without writing, he immediately
exclaims: “What is this impudence and rashness of certain capricious and
wholly lost men,

which considers this method of handing down, propagating, and preserving

the Gospel (namely by unwritten tradition), by which the church of Christ
was born, trained, spread far and wide, and finally

preserved, to be foolish and of little worth? For it cannot be denied that this
is the best, surest, and safest method of transmitting, propagating, and
preserving the doctrine of the Gospel, a method which the Son

of God Himself, the Wisdom of the Father, initiated and which the Holy
Ghost adopted when He led the

apostles into all truth.”

Andrada makes a calculation and shows that the church was without the
written Gospel for 20 years or more. He does not approve of the reckoning
of Theophylact, that Matthew wrote in the eighth year

after the ascension of Christ, but accepts the note of Irenaeus, that Matthew
first wrote when Paul was
already at Rome; and so he computes 21 years and 11 months from the
ascension of Christ before the

writing of the Gospel of Matthew. Or if the opinion of those is accepted

who attribute to the reign of

Claudius 13 years and 9 months, it will come to 22 years and 7 months.

Therefore, says Andrada, not

for eight years only, as Theophylact assumes, but for so many years and
months the church of Christ lacked the written Gospel. But because of the
clatter of his abacus during his calculation to have the reckoning of
Irenaeus, which I do not reject, accepted by all means, he did not consider
that Paul had

written at least six epistles before he was led captive to Rome: two to the
Thessalonians, one to Timothy, two to the Corinthians, and one to the
Romans. According to the statement of Irenaeus therefore, the doctrine of
the Gospel had already been written in so many epistles of Paul before it
was

written by Matthew.

13 It would not be difficult for me to show from the Acts of the Apostles in
approximately which year after the ascension of Christ Paul first began to
write to the Thessalonians; and so something would

be deducted from Andrada’s figure of 22 years and 7 months, at which time

he says the Gospel first began to be committed to writing. But we shall not
quarrel about the number of years and months, concerning which there is
also not sufficient agreement among ancient writers. Yes, let us freely add
to

the figure of Andrada also the years of the ministry of Christ (which is
something Andrada did not think

of at the time), in order that we may be able to increase the number of years
by the addition of three
years and some months. Let it therefore be so, as Andrada contends, that for
20 years or more the church lacked the written Gospel. What will he
accomplish by this? Certainly, in the Old Testament the

church of God from the beginning of the world lacked the divinely inspired
Scripture for a period of 2,454 years. Or if we decided to increase this
number by the noise of more calculations, we could say

according to the Septuagint that the first church lacked the Scripture for
3,692 years.10

14 What if now some Talmudist, or Cabalist, should rise up, after the
Scripture of the Old Testament has been given, and should say with the
grandiloquence of Andrada in behalf of his traditions: “What is

the impudence and rashness of certain capricious and wholly lost men, who
are no longer willing to permit this method of transmitting the Word of
God, by which the first church in the world was born,

educated, and spread and preserved for 2,454 years?” namely, the method
that beside the Scripture the

Cabala should also be received with equal reverence and devotion?

The Cabalists could certainly, if not in person, then at least through some
paid speaker, amplify these

things in a much grander manner than Andrada his calculation of 20 years.

But let Andrada tell us what

he thinks should be the answer to this objection in behalf of the Scripture of

the Old Testament against

the Cabala of the Talmudists. And let him take this answer as applying also
to himself. We have already

shown that it is idle and wrong to assume an exception on the basis of Jer.
31:33.
15 What Andrada peddles concerning the 20 years is therefore mere words,
or rather, according to the Book of Proverbs, wind. For it does not follow
from the fact that the church of the New Testament for

20 years lacked the written Gospel that therefore it would have been best if
it had been without it forever and that consequently the apostles acted
wickedly when they instituted a different way of spreading and preserving
the doctrine of the Gospel, namely, through written records — different
from

the one which the Son of God Himself, who is the Wisdom of the Father,
initiated during His ministry,

for He used solely oral transmission without writing. If Andrada denies that
this is what he means, then

how do they think that this conclusion should have any validity: For 20
years the apostles propagated

and preserved the doctrine of the Gospel without writing, solely by oral
tradition: therefore the former

manner is to be observed also now, after the doctrine of the Gospel has been
committed to writing, and,

indeed, in such a way that the traditions are opposed to the Scriptures.

The apostles propagated the doctrine of the Gospel, received from Christ
and explained by the Holy Ghost, during the first few years without writing,
solely by oral tradition; soon, however, by the will of God, as Irenaeus says,
they began to commit to letters and to comprehend in writings, not a
contrary, not

a different, not another doctrine, but that very same doctrine which they
preached orally.

16 But if someone asks why they did not begin to write immediately in the
first year, we could give as our reasons what we said above concerning
2,454 years from the beginning of the world. But here the

reason is clearer. For before the doctrine of the Gospel was written, it had to
be confirmed over against

the slanders and contradictions of Jews and Gentiles by the preaching of the
apostles with signs and wonders throughout the whole world, and it had to
be approved by the assent of believing people in all

lands, that we might be certain that those things which were written are not
doubtful, uncertain, or not

sure enough, but as Luke says, accomplished (Luke 1:1), that is, confirmed
by God through the apostles

and approved by the first believers throughout the whole world as of the
greatest reliability. Thus not

only is nothing taken away from the Scripture, but its dignity and authority
is enhanced all the more by

the fact that it was not committed to epistles at once during the first years of
apostolic preaching.

17 The point of this whole dispute demands that it be shown for what
causes, to what purpose, and

with what aim and intent the evangelists and apostles wanted to commit the
doctrine of the Gospel to

writing or commend and entrust it to books; to what use they wanted to

have these writings put in the

church; in what esteem the primitive church held these writings; what and
how much it ascribed to them. To this point of the debate we should have
proceeded as soon as we had stated the subject:

“Concerning the Scripture of the New Testament”; but first we had to put
down the clamor of the papalists concerning the text in Jeremiah and
concerning the first years of apostolic preaching, for by

this noise they attempt to overwhelm and stun the reader in order to lead
him away from the real point

at issue.

18 We shall place as it were in the very forefront the beautiful statement of

Irenaeus which is found in the preface and chapter 1 of Book III, 11 where
he says: “That alone is the true and living faith which the church has
received from the apostles and communicated to her children. For the Lord
of all gave His

apostles the power of the Gospel, and through them we also have come to
know the truth, that is, the

doctrine of the Son of God; to whom also the Lord said: ‘He who hears you
hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me and Him who sent Me.’ For
through no others do we know the plan of salvation

except through those by whom the Gospel has come to us. That, indeed,
which they then preached, they

afterward delivered to us in the Scriptures by the will of God, that it should

be the foundation and pillar of our faith.”

19 This statement of Irenaeus speaks of the whole Scripture of the New

Testament in general, whose

authority, perfection, and (as we now say) sufficiency, he shows by the

firmest of demonstrations. For

that is beyond all controversy the only true and living faith which the
primitive church received from

the apostles and delivered to her children. But this faith was first conceived
through the preaching of the apostles, which they themselves had received
from the teaching of the Son of God. This doctrine of Christ and of the
apostles, from which the true faith of the primitive church was received, the
apostles at first delivered orally, without writing, but later, not by any
human counsel but by the will of God, they

handed it on in the Scriptures. What do we conclude? That this is the same

doctrine which they had received from the Son of God, which they had
preached orally, from which the primitive church had received the only true
and lifegiving faith from the apostles and delivered it to her children. And
to whom did the apostles deliver the Gospel in the Scriptures? Was it that
only those particular churches to

whom the epistles of the apostles were addressed might use these writings
of the apostles only for the

present necessity? This indeed Pighius seems to imagine, but Irenaeus says:
“The apostles delivered to

us in the Scriptures what they had preached.” And for what purpose? What
use did the apostles want the

church to make of this their Scripture? Irenaeus answers: “That that which
they delivered to us in

writing might in the future be the foundation and pillar of our faith,”
namely, of that faith which the church received from the apostles and
delivered to her children. Therefore we have in the Scriptures which the
apostles delivered to us by the will of God the foundation and pillar of the
only true and lifegiving faith of the primitive church, received from the
apostles. It is called the foundation of faith, because faith is learned, known,
built up, and received from it. It is called a pillar because through it that
faith which alone is true and gives life is proved, confirmed, defended
against all corruptions, and preserved. A faith, therefore, which is built up,
received, proved, and confirmed from any other source

than from the Scriptures transmitted by the apostles is not the true, life-
giving, apostolic faith of the primitive church. This lies most clearly and
firmly in the argumentation of Irenaeus. And later he says
that those are heretics who do not agree with the apostolic writings, and he
describes the marks of the

heretics in these words in chapter 2: “When they are proved wrong from the
Scriptures, they turn and accuse the Scriptures themselves, as if they were
not correct and were without authority, both because

they speak now one way, now another, and also because the truth cannot be
found from Scripture by those who do not know the tradition; for (so they
say) the truth was not given through epistles, but through the living voice,”
etc. It is surprising that Pighius, Lindanus, Andrada, and others like them do

not blush a little when they recognize their own voices in this description.
Irenaeus shows in this statement for what purpose the apostles delivered
their doctrine to us in the Scriptures and what use they wanted made of this
Scripture in the church, namely, that it should be the foundation and pillar
of our

faith who have not heard the living voice of the apostles. And he adds that
those are heretics who either

cast away those Scriptures or turn and accuse them of speaking

inconsistently and say that the truth cannot be found in them, unless besides
these Scriptures the traditions are added which are treated as

having been handed down by the apostles orally.

20 This I wanted to remark rather more in detail with respect to the

statement of Irenaeus. For he speaks of the whole Scripture of the New
Testament in general and embraces with the firmest argumentation all of the
things which pertain to this controversy concerning the authority of the
Scripture. What the opinion of Irenaeus is concerning traditions we shall
explain in the next section. I

beg the reader to compare with this statement of Irenaeus what Andrada
says, namely, that an abridged
statement of the apostolic doctrine has been committed to writing in order
that the greater part, like a

treasure of great price, might be left in the unwritten traditions; also, what
the Council of Trent has decreed, namely, that in the controversies of these
times the truth cannot be found from the Scriptures

alone, unless also those items belonging both to faith and to morals are
received with equal reverence

and devotion which they peddle outside of and beyond the Scripture, from
unwritten traditions. But that

the truth may appear all the more clearly, we shall inquire concerning all the
writings of the New Testament in order, for what reasons and to what end
they were written and what use both the writers

themselves and the primitive church wanted to have made of this Scripture.

21 We shall not argue too precisely concerning the exact time, either of
years or months, when each of the writings of the New Testament was
published. (For the notes of the ancient writers do not agree

sufficiently.) But we shall take what is certain and open to view.

22 I gladly accept what Andrada asserts concerning Matthew, namely, that

he wrote when Paul was

already at Rome. It is fair that we should follow the opinion of more ancient
writers, like Irenaeus and

Eusebius in the Historia ecclesiastica, rather than that of the more recent
ones, such as Theophylact’s of 8 or Nicephorus’ of 15 years. And this
assumption I adopt the more gladly because it will lead us to the

first and glorious origin of the New Testament Scripture. For if Matthew
wrote only when Paul was preaching the Gospel in Rome, as Irenaeus says,
then he is the first among the evangelists according to
the opinion of all the ancients; but he will not be the first among those who
began to commit the apostolic doctrine to writing, for before Paul was led
in fetters to Rome, he had already sent some of his written epistles, as may
clearly be gathered from the history of the Acts, as we have shown above.
But I

ask: Had nothing been written by the apostles before Paul sent out his first
epistles? I find in Acts 15:23–29 that the apostles and elders in the first and
most famous apostolic council, after diligent deliberation of the matter and
with the consent of all, wrote an epistle to the churches that had been
gathered from the Gentiles. I do not find that before that epistle anything
was committed to writing by

the apostles if we follow the calculation of Andrada concerning the

evangelists. This must therefore be

the first origin and the first beginning of the divinely inspired Scripture in
the New Testament. That this is so Andrada, according to his own
calculation concerning Matthew, will not be able to deny. As we

therefore found a very illustrious origin of the Holy Scripture in the Old
Testament, since God Himself

first inscribed the words of the Decalog on tables with His fingers; so
Andrada has given me occasion

with his calculation to investigate the glorious and illustrious first origin of
the Scripture in the New Testament, namely, that the beginning of
committing the apostolic doctrine to writing was made not by

some one of the apostles for some private purpose, but when all the apostles
and also the presbyters of

the church of Jerusalem were assembled in the first and most famous
apostolic council and there was

written and sent out by common suffrage and after diligent deliberation the
epistle which contains the
judgment of the apostles concerning the matter which was then in
controversy. That this was the first

writing given out by the apostles in the New Testament, Andrada, if he

wants to be consistent, will not

be able to deny. Nor will he be able to teach on the basis of reliable

testimonies that any part of the divinely inspired Scripture was written in
the New Testament before that apostolic council. For he does

not accept the calculation of Theophylact, and, in my judgment, rightly so.

Nor do I think that he places

the apocryphal epistle which is found in Eusebius and purports to have been
written by Jesus our Savior

to Abgar, the ruler of Edessa, in the number of the canonical writings.

23 What we have pointed out, then, is the first origin of the divinely
inspired Scripture in the New Testament, whose identifying mark is “It has
seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” And even as at

first the Law went out of Zion, and the Word from Jerusalem by oral
tradition, so also the first Scripture of the New Testament went out from
Zion and had its beginning at Jerusalem. This fact contributes much to the
dignity and authority of Scripture.

24 This first beginning, if it is rightly considered, shows precisely the thing

about which we are disputing, namely, for what reasons, on what occasion,
with what purpose in mind, and for what use of

the church the apostolic doctrine began to be committed to writing. For the
very first apostolic letter uses these words: “Some persons from us have
troubled you with words, teaching circumcision and observance of the law,
although we gave no such command,” etc. Therefore, because the churches
were
being troubled under the pretext and name of apostolic traditions through
the spreading of false and forged doctrines, it seemed good to the apostles
and presbyters together with the whole church to commit the true judgment
of the apostles concerning this controversy to writing. This was the
occasion

for the first apostolic writing. But the purpose and use was this, that from
the writing the church might

be sure what was the true and genuine apostolic judgment, lest someone, as
had happened previously,

should be able to foist upon the churches a false and forged opinion under
the pretext that it had been

handed down by and received from the apostles. This experience shows that
in the very first years of

apostolic preaching — in the face of such snares of the devil, such malice of
the world, and such impudence of the human mind — the purity of the
apostolic doctrine was not preserved faithfully through traditions but that
the doctrine was adulterated under the pretext of apostolic traditions, since
the apostles themselves could not be present everywhere with the living
voice when the church was spread through various lands. And for this
reason a beginning was made in the first synod of the apostles with the
writing of the apostolic doctrine.

25 Also this must be noted in the first apostolic epistle, that they write that
they have sent Jude and Silas to communicate those very same things which
they had put into their epistle. Why did they not rather command the
churches to be content with the oral tradition through Jude and Silas,
without

writing, unless it was because they judged that on account of the danger of
falsified traditions this method was useful and necessary for the certainty of
the church, that Jude and Silas, who had received
commands from the apostles which they were to bring to the church, should
be able to show also in writing and prove that what they were bringing and
delivering was not uncertain, corrupted, or false, but

genuine and true. And Luke then adds that they did this with many words
and in a long speech, and yet

what they explained with far more words was nothing contrary or different,
in fact, nothing else than what had been written, “the same things,” as the
epistle of the apostles says; not that they repeated only the same letters and
syllables but that their meaning was one and the same, although it was
carried out

by Jude and Silas in more words and at greater length. As much as was
sufficient and necessary, however, was contained in the writing of the
apostles as in a summary and brief statement.

26 This observation concerning the first beginning of the Scripture in the

New Testament points to sources of explanations when the papalists object
that the apostles taught more extensively and more effusively than that all
their words could have been comprehended in those few pages of Scripture.

27 But we must inquire also concerning the remaining writings of the New
Testament, for what reasons, with what purpose in mind, and for what use
they were written and sent out, for this is … the

point of this dispute. If we preferred to follow the chronological order, we

would have to speak first about certain epistles of Paul, but for the sake of
the usual order, we shall speak first about the writings of the evangelists and
then about the epistles of the apostles.

ARTICLE I

Concerning the Writings of the Evangelists

1 We propose to prove that the evangelists wrote their histories for this
reason, with this purpose, and for this use, that whatever of the words and
deeds of the Lord the apostles judged necessary for the later church to know
should come down to posterity in writing.

2 All are agreed that Matthew was the first among the four evangelists to
write his history.

Concerning the occasion and purpose of writing, Eusebius remarks, Bk. 3,

ch. 24: “When Matthew had

first preached to the Hebrews and was now about to go also to others, he
committed his Gospel to writing in the language of his fathers, and through
writing supplied to those whom he was leaving what

they might lack after his departure.” Nicephorus, Bk. 2, ch. 45, expressed
this opinion thus: “When he

was departing, he compensated for his absence by the present writing.”

Thomas quotes this description of Jerome: “Matthew published his Gospel

in Judea especially for the

benefit of those Jews who had come to faith at Jerusalem. For when he had
first preached the Gospel

orally and now wanted to go to the Gentiles, he first wrote the Gospel,
which he bequeathed as a memorial to the brethren from whom he was
departing. For as it was necessary to preach the Gospel for

the confirmation of the faith, so it was necessary to write it against the

heretics.”

Chrysostom, in Homily 1 on Matthew, says: “Matthew wrote when the

believers in Christ from

among the Jews had approached him and asked that he would send them in
writing what he had taught

them by word of mouth, that it might be preserved.”

The author of the uncompleted work on Matthew which is ascribed to
Chrysostom relates the

occasion for writing as follows: “When a severe persecution had arisen in

Palestine and all were in danger of being scattered, they begged Matthew to
write for them the history of all the words and works

of Christ, lest they who lacked teachers should also lack instruction, but
that, wherever they might be in the future, they would have a complete
statement of the faith with them.”

Thomas reports the idea this way: “About to be scattered, they asked
Matthew to put in writing for

them a summary of the whole faith which he had transmitted orally, etc.
And this story of a persecution

agrees quite well with the time of writing, according to Irenaeus. For about
the 20th year after the ascension of Christ, Judea was sadly afflicted with
astrologers and robbers, Josephus tells us. Add to this the imprisonment of
Paul, which was considered a threat of danger to all Christians.”

3 Thus the reasons why Matthew wrote his Gospel are these: (1) because of
his departure and his absence, to provide in writing … what he could not
provide by his presence and his oral teaching and

admonition; (2) because memory is frail and fallible, to transmit in writing

for safe keeping the things

he had taught; (3) that those who could not have the oral teaching of the
apostles might have a statement

and summary of the whole faith comprehended in writing; (4) it was

necessary on account of the heretics that the doctrine of the Gospel should
be written, lest false, fraudulent, and corrupt teachings be foisted on the
church under the name of Gospel. And Irenaeus gives the writing of
Matthew as the first
example of what he had said: “What the apostles preached by the will of
God they afterward delivered

to us in the Scriptures that it might be the foundation and pillar of our

faith.”

4 Lindanus passes lightly over this, imagining that this was only a
remembrance, as we say of the little gifts of friends:

Accept this gift of love from me,

And keep me in your memory.

But plain facts will not allow themselves to be so easily evaded.

5 It must also be noted what use the apostles themselves and apostolic men
judged should be made of the Gospel written by Matthew.

Jerome writes that when Pantaenus had been sent to India by Demetrius, the
bishop of Alexandria, he

found that Bartholomew had preached there the coming of Christ according
to Matthew, which, written

also in Hebrew, he carried with him from there to Alexandria.

Nicephorus, Bk. 4, ch. 32, tells the story in this way: “Among some of the
believers in India the Gospel of Matthew was found in the Hebrew
language, expounded by Bartholomew, which for a long

time preserved inviolate the form in which its original writer composed it.”

The same writer, Bk. 17, ch. 36, reports that the Gospel of Matthew was
found in the sepulchre of Barnabas, written by Barnabas’ own hand.
Therefore the apostles themselves and apostolic men had a
high respect for the Gospel of Matthew and showed by their example what
use should be made of it in

the church.

6 That Mark was the second to write, after Matthew, almost all agree. But
Clement of Alexandria places Luke before Mark. Irenaeus even reports that
Mark wrote after the death of Peter and Paul.

However, we shall not dispute concerning the sequence and time. It will be
more profitable to inquire on

what occasion and for what purpose he wrote and what is the authority of
this writing.

Eusebius, Bk. 2, ch. 15, relates this story from Clement, Bk. 1, ch. 15,
which Nicephorus repeats:

“When the Gospel had come to the West, such a great light of devotion
illumined the minds of those who had heard Peter that they could not be
content with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation or remain
steadfast in the things which they had learned of the divine Word without
writing; but they implored Mark with great earnestness that he would leave
them a written account of

that doctrine which they had received orally. … And they say that the
apostle Peter, when he knew this

by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was delighted by the wish of these men, in
a formal statement approved this writing, confirmed it, and ordained that it
should be read in the churches.”

Nicephorus says, Bk. 2, ch. 45, that Peter dictated the Gospel to Mark and
sanctioned that it should

thereafter be read in the churches.

Eusebius, Bk. 3, ch. 39, and Nicephorus, Bk. 3, ch. 20, quote from Papias
that Mark paid less attention to the sequence of events but that he had set
before himself this one aim in writing, that he would not omit anything of
the things that he had heard, nor on any subject transmit anything that was

untrue.

Irenaeus, Bk. 3, ch. 1, says: “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter,
transmitted to us what had

been preached.”

Pighius is delighted with the words of Rufinus, who calls the Gospel of
Mark a pious theft in order

that he may the more readily diminish the authority of the Scripture. But for
what purpose the Gospel of

Mark was written and what Peter wanted its authority to be in the churches
the reader will understand

from what has been said. And he will see what silly and strange things the
papalists reply to these clear

testimonies.

7 Regarding Luke and the purpose for which he wrote his history we need
not seek the testimony of

others. For he himself in his prologue expressly explains on what occasion

and for what purpose he composed his writing; namely, because many were
attempting, though not with enough diligence,

certainty, and fidelity, to weave together the story concerning the things
which Jesus began to do and teach. The word

(“to set forth in order”) can be referred to tradition as well as to writing, for

the doctrine of the Gospel had at that time been adulterated and corrupted in
both ways. And from the
antithesis it may be observed where most of this originated. For Luke calls
what he writes

, “things of the greatest reliability,” which he has diligently ascertained.

Therefore,

corruptions began to arise in the time of the apostles because either false, or
counterfeit, or not sufficiently certain things were handed down, both orally
and in writing, as certain and true by such as

had not sufficiently ascertained “the exact truth” of the evangelical doctrine.

8 What kind of remedy was opposed to this danger of corruption of the

doctrine at the time of the apostles? Did they hold that the purity of the
doctrine could be preserved safe and sound for posterity

against the dangers of corruption by means of oral traditions received in the

minds and written in the hearts of the believers? Theophilus certainly was
“informed,” that is, he had received the doctrine of the Gospel orally from
the genuine traditions of the apostles, but Luke says that he wrote his
Gospel for the

sake of the

(“safeguarding”) of this doctrine. With this word he described most

beautifully

the certain and firm custody and preservation of the purity of the doctrine
against every kind of danger

and threats of corruption.

Now the verb

(“to safeguard”) is used whenever careful watchfulness is exercised over

something so that care is taken that it may not slip away or be lost. Thus in
Acts 16:24 the confinement

of the prisoners is described with this word. In Matt. 27:64 the Jews asked
that the sepulcher of Jesus be

“made secure.” The word is also used whenever something is so fortified

and strengthened against an

opposing attack that it may be possible to keep and preserve it safe and
unharmed; as when towns are

fortified with defenses and garrisons, the head is protected by a helmet, and
doors are secured by a bolt

— examples that are current among writers in great number.

Because of such

(“safeguarding”) of the purity of doctrine against the attacks of

corruptions, Luke says, he wrote down his Gospel. And Paul also uses the
same word about his writings

in Phil. 3:1, as we shall point out later.

Theophylact explains this word in two ways: (1) “Before this, I taught you
the Gospel orally, now I

give it to you in writing, and thus I fortify your mind so that you may not
forget the things that were

delivered to you orally.” (2) “When some one speaks to us orally, we are
usually suspicious that there
may be some lie added; but when he also writes down what he says, we
believe him, because he would

not have written it down if he were not sure that he is speaking the truth.
Thus Luke says: ‘I have written the Gospel to you that you may keep in
greater security the things about which you received oral

instruction and that you may have greater faith in me because I have such
trust in the things I have taught orally that I have also not been afraid to
give them out in writing.’” Thus Theophylact.

9 It is certain therefore and clear on what occasion, for what reason, with
what intention, and to what end Luke wrote his Gospel. Eusebius says of
Luke, Bk. 3, ch. 24: “He feels obliged to free us from the

doubtful opinion of others by himself giving a reliable account through his

Gospel. He himself explains

what the reader is to expect from his writing. For he says that he has written
the things which were at

that time

concerning the words and deeds of the Savior among the Christians, that is,

known, sure, and undoubted, and concerning which they were accustomed
to be instructed. And he says

that he has described them in the way in which those who had from the
beginning been eyewitnesses

and ministers of the evangelical doctrine delivered them to the church.

There is no doubt that the apostles at first delivered the doctrine of Christ
orally, without writing. But did these traditions of the apostles remain, and
were they left without writing? Certainly Luke affirms

that he has committed to writing the same things in the same way as the
apostles transmitted to the church the doctrine of deeds and words of Christ.
Irenaeus, Bk. 3, ch. 14, draws a fine comparison in this matter between the
teacher Paul and the disciple Luke: “After the elders of the church at
Ephesus had been called to Miletus, Paul says: ‘I kept

back nothing but have declared to you the whole counsel of God.’ Luke,
without envy, transmitted what

he had learnt, saying, ‘As they delivered them to us,’ etc.” Thus Irenaeus.

Ambrose explains that when Luke asserts that he has carefully searched out
all things, he

nevertheless does not say that he has written all things, but “concerning” all
things.

Chrysostom asks how Luke can say that he wrote concerning all things that
Jesus began to do and teach, although John says that this is impossible. He
replies: “He did not say ‘all’ but ‘concerning all,’

just as we say, ‘in short’ and ‘in general’; or, he speaks about all the things
which are necessary.”

Surely it is crystal clear that these statements speak for the authority of the
Scripture, against the pretext of the unwritten tradition as these are flaunted
in our time by the papalists.

10 We must still speak about the fourth evangelist, that is, about John. If we
observe the history of his writing, it will point out to us many things that are
of importance for this dispute. When the writings of the three evangelists
had already been sent out and were to be found in the church, the apostles
who were still living taught concerning the works of Christ, both what was
contained in the writings of the

three evangelists and what they retained in their memory besides of His
deeds and sayings, so that at that time the word of Paul could rightly have
been applied by the apostles concerning the works of Christ, 2 Thess. 2:15:
“Hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of
mouth or
through the writings of the three evangelists.”

11 But see what actually happened! When the remaining apostles had died
and John had been banished to Patmos, Ebion and Cerinthus stirred up
contentions concerning the divinity of Christ, concerning an earthly reign of
His, concerning Levitical observances, etc., and sadly disturbed the
churches. But hear … in what manner and under what cloak and pretext
they did this. Eusebius, Bk. 3,

ch. 28, quotes from Caius that Cerinthus wanted to bring his fantastic
doctrines into the church under

the pretext of revelations supposedly received from a great apostle. And he

adds that he was an enemy

of the Scriptures of God. And because it was still fresh in the memory of
the church that the apostles

had transmitted certain other things concerning the deeds and words of the
Savior beside what was written in the accounts of the three evangelists,
Cerinthus and others misused this as a pretext and set

forth their false doctrines which they could not prove from the then existing
apostolic writings, maintaining that the apostles had taught these things
orally; and they insisted that the things that had been written must be made
to agree with these forged traditions. St. John is looking back on these
battles when he says in Rev. 2:2, 20: “You have tested those who call
themselves apostles but are not”;

also, “Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, etc.” Therefore they boast of
both revelations and traditions for which they want to claim apostolic
authority. John says in the epistle to Thyatira that they called these doctrines
“the deep things,” that is, not the commonly proclaimed dogmas of the
apostles,

which were known to all in the church also from the Scriptures, but deep,
hidden, and secret mysteries,
which the apostles had delivered from hand to hand, not to anyone and
everyone, but privately and orally to their friends, as mysteries that were to
be honored in silence. But John calls them deep things

not of the apostles but of Satan.

12 The strife which was incited in this way greatly disturbed the churches.
For they could not deny, since it was of recent memory, that the apostles
had handed down more concerning the works of Christ

by word of mouth than was contained in the writings of the three

evangelists. And since the other apostles had already died, God without
doubt granted John a longer life … that he might with apostolic

vigilance see to it for the good of the church for all time that neither
fraudulent traditions nor spurious writings should be foisted on the churches
as the true and genuine teaching of the apostles.

13 Therefore, when John had returned to Asia from exile on Patmos, the
controversies which had been stirred up in the meantime by Cerinthus and
others were brought before him as the last watchman

and overseer from among the apostles, to be examined and judged, not only
by the bishops in Asia, but

also by representatives of many believers and of the whole church, as

Jerome says. There John, as Eusebius writes, Bk. 3, ch. 24, approved of the
writings of the three evangelists, and testified that they are true. But
because the question was then being discussed very noisily whether
everything which the

Lord had done and taught, and which the apostles had transmitted
concerning His works, was contained

in the writings of the three evangelists, or whether more had been

transmitted than was written, John made use of this occasion and wrote his
Gospel narrative and set before the church those things of which he knew
that they had been done and transmitted to the church over and above the
accounts of

the three evangelists, and which the Holy Ghost judged to be necessary and
sufficient for the church for all time to come. He did this so that the church
might not in the future be carried about by any wind and

pretense of traditions but be sure in the doctrine of the apostles concerning

the deeds of Christ. And because Ebion 12 accepted only the Gospel of
Matthew, for which he invented peculiar interpretations, ostensibly received
by tradition, John reported the speeches of Christ more diligently than the
other apostles had done and showed that the true interpretation must be
taken from them.

14 It is very instructive to observe the true occasion and cause of the

writing of John. Had everything which Jesus did and said been
comprehended in writing, when also John had written? But no means!

For John himself concludes his Gospel thus: “There are also many other
things which Jesus did; were

every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not
contain the books that would

be written.” Have we not therefore all things that are necessary and
sufficient concerning the doctrine of Christ in the writings of the
evangelists, or are also other things … from the traditions necessary for
faith and salvation? This, indeed, the papalists maintain. But hear what John
says: “But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God, and that believing you may have life in

His name.”

15 In order to escape these words, Lindanus says that John treated of that
one article in his writing, namely, of the deity of Christ. It is, however,
certain and clear that he wanted to add that concerning the doctrine and
miracles of Christ which is lacking in the accounts of the other evangelists.
He makes true
faith, salvation, and eternal life the sum and purpose of the whole doctrine
of Christ. John affirms that

that part of the doctrine of Christ which is necessary and sufficient for true
faith and salvation has been written. Therefore it is clear that though not
everything … was written, nevertheless, whatever of the doctrine and
miracles of Christ is necessary and sufficient for true faith and eternal life
has been written.

For John says this not only concerning his own writing but also concerning
the writings of the other evangelists, as the older interpreters all have it. It is
clear, therefore, that those who seek other things beside these with respect
to the doctrine of Christ are seeking neither faith nor salvation but treachery

and perdition. For John says: “These are written that you may believe, and
believing may have life.”

John gives the reason why the Holy Spirit did not want every single thing to
be written: not that anything whatsoever might be spewed out into the
church out of the shrine of the Roman pontiff’s heart

under the name and pretext of traditions but that the world, as he says,
could not contain it. Augustine

correctly says that this must be understood not of the great number of books
nor of physical room, but

that the Holy Spirit had consideration for us and selected that for writing
which the believers in their present infirmity could comprehend. Therefore
we ought gratefully and reverently to embrace and kiss

this blessing of the Holy Spirit, that He condescended to our infirmity and
did not want to burden it too

much but selected and assigned for writing that of the doctrine and miracles
of Christ which He judged

to be sufficient and necessary for true faith and eternal life.

16 Here Andrada exclaims: “Were then the other things which Christ did
and said, and which were

not written, superfluous and useless for faith and morals? Did Christ then
perform futile labor and superfluous work in all other things except those
which are written, in things that were to be of no benefit to future ages?”
We answer simply with the words of John: “Were every one of them to be
written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain all the books. But
these are written that you may believe, and that believing you may have life
through faith.” The other things were not for this reason futile and
unprofitable, seeing that He frequently repeated the same speeches and
performed similar miracles; for His doctrine had to be confirmed, and after
it had been confirmed, a summary of it

was written down by the will of God.

17 Andrada also objects that Christ after His resurrection, during 40 days,
said many things concerning the kingdom of God which we do not have in
writing by any evangelist, and yet it is not to

be thought that they were so unimportant that they could be judged futile.
We reply with what

Augustine said concerning the statement of Christ in John 16:12, “I have

yet many things to say to you, etc.”: “Since the evangelists kept silence,
who among us can say that it was this or that, or, if he dares to say it, how
will he prove it? Who is so boastful and rash as to affirm, without divine
testimony, even

though he should speak the truth, what are the things which the Holy Spirit
did not want to write through the evangelists? Which one of us does this
without incurring the worst charge of rashness, which is not a mark either of
prophetic or of apostolic authority?” Nevertheless, we can gather with
certainty from the writings of the apostles what those things were which
Christ said to them concerning

the kingdom of God, when He opened their understanding.

18 It is worth the effort to note the astonishing trick of Andrada which he
undoubtedly learned at the Council of Trent. Against the Jesuits, I had
adduced the statements of Augustine and Cyril that from the

doctrine and miracles of Christ that had been chosen for writing which was
judged by the Holy Spirit to

be sufficient for the salvation of believers. … What do you think, kind

reader, can Andrada bring forward against these clear testimonies, which
might seem to have been written by a ray of the sun (to

use the words of Tertullian), against the sufficiency of the Scripture and for
the traditions? I will tell you: First, he vigorously abuses us that we, after
the fashion of dissolute men, operate with mutilated

and abbreviated testimonies of the saints in order to deceive the

inexperienced multitude. We, however,

are both able and accustomed, by the grace of God, to inspect the passages
in the authors themselves,

not to get information only from commentaries. But let us hear how
cunningly Andrada is able to chisel

a different meaning out of these sayings of Augustine and Cyril. With

threatening mien he delivers his

judgment as though from a bench at Trent, to the effect that, “when

Augustine says: ‘Those things were

selected to be written which seemed sufficient for the salvation of the

believers,’ this does not at all mean that the evangelists compressed all the
doctrine of our faith into a small volume, but rather that

they committed only that to writing which could establish credence for all
the other things which had

not been committed to writing.” 13 This is certainly a bold interpretation.

But are these the words of Augustine? They are not; they are words of
Andrada. But he had declared himself willing to show us

from the words of Augustine that this is what he means. But hear how he
accomplishes this. Augustine

says that the miracle of the quickened Lazarus attests the following: (1)
Christ is that God who created

all that is contained in the whole universe. (2) At the end of the world He
will quicken all the dead, that we may believe in Him and prepare ourselves
for that resurrection which will be to life and not to the

judgment. (3) He says that the quickening of Lazarus symbolizes the

resurrection of souls which takes

place by the great grace of God through faith, that they may not die
eternally, etc. And by this Andrada

wants to prove that Augustine speaks of faith in those things which are not
contained in the holy writings. But I have until now believed in my
simplicity that those articles of which Augustine speaks

are expressly contained in the sacred writings. And already I was beginning
to wonder how a sane person, unless he were perhaps dreaming in
consequence of fever, could construe out of these words of

Augustine what Andrada asserts so emphatically, but it had slipped my

mind that Andrada wrote this at

the Council of Trent, where the right and full authority for such
interpretations is at home and no one is free to say: What are you doing?
Great, indeed, must be the insolence, or impudence, of Andrada that he

thinks he can persuade Germany with his bombastic speech to accept such
things.

The other interpretation is of the same caliber. Cyril says: “Not all things
that the Lord did have been
written, but what the writers believed would suffice both for morals and for
dogmas.” Andrada, however, gives the interpretation that Cyril does not by
these words assert that all the doctrines were explained for faith by the
sacred writings but only those which can suffice to secure belief in all
divine doctrines (namely, those which are not contained in the Scripture). I
shall add nothing, for it is evident how willful and proud is this — I will not
say explanation but — mockery of Andrada if it is compared

with the words of Cyril. And what kind of council do you think that was in
which such interpretations

ruled? It is useful, however, that we should have such examples of the tricks
of the papalists. And even

Andrada himself does not have enough confidence in his own mockery,
therefore he seeks other avenues of escape. He maintains that Cyril said this
only of the Gospel of John. But the words of Cyril

are: “Which the writers believed to suffice.” Can this refer to John only? O
shameless tongue! Finally

he concludes that even though the meaning of Augustine and Cyril should
be that those things were written which are sufficient for morals, for faith,
and for salvation, nevertheless, the common consensus

should be preferred, by which the opposite is established.

19 I therefore repeat those statements of Augustine and Cyril, which I now

love all the more, since I see that they so firmly and clearly assert the
authority and sufficiency of Scripture with respect to the

doctrine of Christ, with the result that, when Andrada with great bitterness
and much bombastic speech,

and finally with all Tridentine cunning attempted in various ways to

bewitch and to change them, he nevertheless gained nothing through this
except the brand of extreme impudence.
These statements pertain to the whole evangelical history of the four
evangelists. Augustine says, In

Evangelium Johannis tractatus, 49: “Although the Lord Jesus had done
many things, not all were written, but those were selected to be written
which were thought to be sufficient for the salvation of the believers.”
Cyril, In Johannem, Bk. 12, says: “Not all that the Lord did, was written,
but that which the writers believed sufficient both for morals and for
dogmas, in order that we may through the right faith

and works, and shining through virtue, come to the kingdom of heaven
through Jesus Christ.”

20 To this I will add one more statement of Augustine, De consensu

evangelistarum, Bk. 1, ch. 35, where he refutes those who believe that the
disciples of Christ who wrote the Gospel should be despised

because no writings of Christ Himself can be produced by us. He says:

“Through the humanity which

He assumed, Christ is the head of all His disciples, who are, as it were,
members of His body. Therefore

when they wrote what He showed them, it should by no means be said that
He Himself did not write,

when the members performed that which they knew through the dictation of
the Head. For whatever He

wanted to have us read concerning His works and sayings, that He

commanded them, as His own hands,

to write.” You know, therefore, honest reader, who is to be understood as

being the author and judge,

when it is said in the preceding statements: “What appeared to be

sufficient,” and “what the writers believed to be sufficient.” But in this last
sentence Andrada will at once find a crack through which he
may slip out, for Augustine says: “Whatever Christ wanted to have us read
concerning His works and

sayings, that He commanded the evangelists to write.” But Andrada says:

“He did not want us to read

all things in the writings of the evangelists, but the greater part of His
sayings and deeds, as a treasure of special value, He wanted us to hear from
the traditions which are not written but handed down as from

hand to hand.” But the reader sees that Augustine neither meant nor said
this. And the things which are

now paraded under this title by the papalists we certainly read in Pighius,
Perezius, Lindanus, Osius, in

the Pontifical, in the Rationale divinorum, in the books of the councils, etc.
But Augustine says:

“Whatever Christ wanted us to read concerning His works and sayings, that
He commanded the

evangelists, as it were His own hands, to write.” Christ therefore did not
want us to read anything concerning His deeds and sayings in other writers
that is not found in the writings of the four evangelists. Whatever, therefore,
has been written besides these by others about the sayings and works

of Christ, that Christ certainly did not command to be written, nor did He
want us to read it. …

Therefore, when the papalists babble that Christ instituted the preparation of
the chrism, the sacrament

of confirmation, of extreme unction, of auricular confession, of satisfaction,

indulgences, purgatory, the Mass, the invocation of saints, the adoration of
images, the twofold sword of the pope, and the shrine in

his heart, and similar things that we read under this title in the writings of
the papalists, we set against them this statement of Augustine: “Whatever
Christ wanted us to read concerning His deeds and sayings, that He
commanded the evangelists, as it were His own hands, to write.”

21 It is clear, therefore, what is to be judged concerning those things which

we do not read in the evangelists, and which are nevertheless peddled under
the name of deeds and sayings of Christ. Now,

we are speaking not about letters and syllables but about the meaning, as
the meaning of His statement

quoted by Paul in Acts 20:35: “It is more blessed to give than to receive,
etc.” is present in many sermons of Christ. Irenaeus is our authority that the
four written Gospels were the norm, standard, and

rule in the primitive church according to which everything that was brought
forward by anyone as having to do with the works and sayings of Christ
used to be examined; what was found in agreement

with them was accepted, but whatever did not agree, or conflicted with
them, was freely repudiated.

Irenaeus says, Bk. 3, ch. 11: “I take it that there are neither more nor fewer
than these four Gospels.

For since there are four quarters of the world and the church is spread over
the whole earth but the pillar and chief support of the church is the Gospel
and the spirit of life, consequently she has four pillars which breathe
incorruptibility from all sides and justify men.” And later he adds: “Those,
however, who

come from Valentinus bring forward their own writings and boast that they
have more than these (namely, written) Gospels, because they have gone so
far in their audacity that they call that the Gospel

of truth which was not written by men of former times and which in nothing
agrees with the Gospels of
the apostles.” For if what they bring forward is the Gospel of truth, and yet
it is different from that which is transmitted to us by the apostles, those who
want to can say, as is shown from the Scriptures

themselves, that what has been transmitted by the apostles is no longer the
Gospel of truth.” Thomas also says concerning Mark: “The Gospel not only
had to be preached to its contemporaries but also had

to be written down for posterity.”

22 By now we have shown quite sufficiently for what reasons, with what
intention, for what purpose

and end the evangelists committed the record of the sayings and deeds of
Christ to writing, what use they wanted to have made of these writings in
the church, in what regard the primitive church held these

writings, what and how much it ascribed to them. From what we have
noted, those things which are urged by the papalists concerning the
unwritten traditions against the authority, perfection, and sufficiency of the
Scripture can be judged very correctly. It is a pleasure to observe that what
was a summary of the faith concerning the sayings and works of Christ in
the church at Jerusalem, from which

the word went out into all the earth, was committed to writing in the Gospel
of Matthew. And the teaching concerning the sayings and works of Christ
which Peter orally transmitted to the church at Rome, whose faith was
celebrated in the whole world during the lifetime of the apostles, was
handed

down to posterity by Mark’s record, for these are the words of antiquity.
Luke himself affirms that he

wrote down those things concerning the sayings and deeds of Christ which
the apostles transmitted in

the church at Antioch (for Luke was a citizen of this town), which was the
first to give the Christians
this name, and what the churches of the Gentiles through which he passed
with Paul at that time held

and confessed with firm and unshaken faith. But what John handed down in
the church at Ephesus concerning the works and sayings of Christ, that he
also himself committed to writing. And these churches were at that time
without controversy the most outstanding, the churches at Jerusalem,
Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome. If it is desired, Alexandria may be added also
to which Mark is reported

to have gone with his Gospel after he had written it. If therefore we inquire
with pious zeal which are

the true and undoubted traditions of the apostles concerning the doctrine of
Christ, what was the

, that is, the firm and undoubted faith of those churches which Tertullian
calls the matrixes,

the matter is most clear from what we have said until now.

ARTICLE II

Concerning the Writings and Epistles of the Apostles

1 Strictly speaking, there is no difference between the doctrine of Christ and

that of the apostles. For when Christ gives the apostles power to preach the
Gospel, Matt. 28:19–20, He adds clearly: “Teaching

them to observe all that I have commanded you.” John 14:26: “The Holy
Ghost will teach you all things

and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” 2 Cor. 13:3:
“You desire proof that Christ is

speaking in me.” 2 Cor. 5:20: “So we are ambassadors for Christ, etc.”
Here, for the sake of order and
analysis, we understand the doctrine of Christ according to the explanation
of Luke, Acts 1:1–2, of “all

that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up.” We
have shown that this doctrine concerning the sayings and works of Christ,
to the extent that the Holy Spirit considered necessary and sufficient for us,
is contained in the writings of the evangelists. But by the doctrine of the
apostles we understand that which they delivered and spread in the whole
world, among Gentiles and

Jews, after the ascension of Christ.

2 Concerning this doctrine we must now speak. It is an established fact that

the apostles during the first few years proved and confirmed the apostolic
teaching from the Scriptures of the Old Testament but that they handed it
down and spread it without any writing of their own, solely by the living
voice.

Later, however, they began to write down certain things about their
doctrine. Out of what

considerations, for what reasons, with what purpose and intent they did this,
and what use they wanted

to have made of their writings in the church, we shall inquire in the same
way as we did concerning the

evangelists. For this is (as also our opponents confess) the true, whole, and
perfect doctrine of the Gospel (as far as we are able to have it in this life),
which Christ, the Son of God, first proclaimed with His own mouth and
afterward commanded that it be preached by His apostles to every creature.
When

therefore we shall have shown also concerning the doctrine of the apostles,
as we have already proved

concerning the doctrine of Christ, that as much as the Holy Spirit judged
necessary and sufficient for us
for dogmas and morals was consigned to writing …, it will be clear that the
sacred Scripture is the canon, norm, rule, foundation, and pillar of our
whole faith, so that whatever is to be accepted under this title and name that
it is the doctrine of Christ and of the apostles must be proved and confirmed
from the Scripture. For in religious controversies all things must be tested
and examined according to this norm

in such a way that the saying of Jerome remains in force: “Whatever does
not have authority in Holy

Scripture can be rejected as easily as it can be approved.”

3 This is the chief point of the controversy between us and the papalists. For
our consideration of it, it is of the utmost relevance and necessity that it be
firmly established and capable of demonstration what

were the first beginnings and progress of apostolic preaching, how they at
first founded churches, both

among Jews and Gentiles; how after they had progressed in a measure they
confirmed them in the faith;

what were the ceremonies, what the practices, and what the government in
the first apostolic church.

4 It is certain that the apostles did not at once write during the first years of
their preaching. But in order that it might not be necessary either to divine
by long inferences or to seek from the chatter of baseless traditions what
was the first and most ancient condition of the apostolic church, the Holy
Spirit willed that a certain, authentic, and canonical writing concerning
these so necessary and useful things

should be found in the church for all future generations, for He was not
unaware that under this title many uncertain, idle, spurious, and false things
would be foisted on the church. For when Luke had by

the writing of the Gospel record gained for himself trust and authority in the
church, he also composed
the record of the Acts of the Apostles, proceeding from the first beginnings
of apostolic preaching. And

this record abundantly supplies what is necessary and sufficient to know

concerning these things.

5 Lindanus rants in a tragic tone of voice that in all the writings of the
apostles nothing is recorded

about the manner in which they led to faith such as were not yet Christians
and which parts of the faith they were accustomed to put before their
catechumens, because (he says) the apostles wrote their epistles not to
novices in the faith and to catechumens but to those whom they had already
instructed in

the fundamentals of the faith. And from this he concludes that the apostles
did not bring together and

include all dogmas of the evangelical faith in the Scriptures. However,

Lindanus did not notice, or rather, he did not want to see, that in Luke’s
Acts of the Apostles not only the historical narration is recorded, that many
who previously had not been Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, were
converted to

the evangelical faith and became Christians, but that there are also found in
it complete descriptions showing which parts of the doctrine the apostles
presented and how they presented them to those whom

they were for the first time leading to the evangelical faith, not only from
among the Jews, to whom the

prophetic doctrine had previously been known, but also from among the
Gentiles, who were wholly ignorant of the divinely revealed doctrine.

In Heb. 6:1–2, the chief parts of the apostolic instruction, which are called
“the elementary doctrines,” are listed as follows: “the doctrine of
repentance from dead works, of faith toward God, of
Baptism, of the laying on of hands, of the resurrection of the dead, and of
eternal judgment.” But who

will be so senseless as to dare to imagine that these chief parts were either
not transmitted or explained in the acts and in the writings of the apostles,
although it is quite clear that they were?

Irenaeus, Bk. 4, ch. 23, says that in the case of those who had previously
been instructed from Moses

and the prophets concerning sin and the promise of the coming of the
Messiah, the catechization by the

apostles was brief and easy, as in Acts 8:27–38 Philip completed the
instruction in short order and then

left the eunuch. But for the apostle Paul the instruction among the Gentiles
was more laborious, because

it was necessary to instruct them not to commit adultery, not to steal, etc.,
and whatever else is hateful to God; also that there is one God, who sent
His Son, etc. Thus Irenaeus.

Certainly we have both things in the writings of the apostles, what they
presented to the Jews, and also what they presented to the Gentiles, when
they brought them to faith in Christ. Luke says, ch. 1:1,

that he is writing about the things concerning which Theophilus had been
previously instructed. With respect to the instruction of the apostles,
therefore, nothing is missing in their writings.

6 But, says Lindanus, Certainly nothing is written, either in the Acts or in

the epistles of the apostles, concerning all those rites which we adherents of
the pope observe in connection with Baptism, or concerning the sacrament
of confirmation through the chrism, etc. I reply: This we also say that there
is
much in the doctrine of the papalists which has no warrant in Scripture, and
therefore we contend that

things of which there are no traces either in the Acts or in the writings of
the apostles are wrongfully

attributed to the apostles.

7 But they object that not all the acts of each apostle were committed to
writing by Luke. For he relates only a little concerning Peter but writes
more about the deeds of Paul, whose traveling companion and associate in
the ministry he was. Nevertheless, he also does not relate all the acts of
Paul, as is seen from 2 Cor. 11:23–27; Rom. 15: 24; Gal. 1 and 2; and from
other places, and concerning

the acts of the other apostles he recorded almost nothing. Therefore the
apostles both said and did far

more than Luke has included in that thin book about the Acts of the
Apostles. Therefore it is wrong to

reject something as not instituted or done by the apostles because Luke did
not record it in the Acts of

the Apostles, but much more must be believed to have been instituted and
done by the apostles than can

be proved from the Acts written by Luke. I reply: And what will finally be
the measure, end, or number

of the things which will be foisted on the church under this title without
witness? But the simple and true solution is understood from the following:
In ancient times, immediately after the days of the apostles, this argument
was carried on in this way, that many writings were put forth, promising to
supply those things which had been passed over by Luke in the Acts of the
Apostles, and which nevertheless seemed necessary for the church, such as
the Journeys of Peter, purporting to have been
written by Clement, the Preaching of Peter, the Acts of Andrew, of Philip,
of Peter, of Thomas, etc.

Indeed, while the apostle John was still living, a history about the time or
the acts of Paul and Thekla

was spread, which John showed to be a fraud by overthrowing the

originator of the forgery; the other

books also about the deeds of the apostles were rejected by the church.
Therefore it is not a new trick to foist on the church useless, false, and
spurious things under the title and pretext that Luke had not followed up all
the acts of the individual apostles in his writing.

Now when spurious books which were promising a fuller account of the
acts of the individual apostles were rejected, without doubt because they
contained uncertain and false things, were then other

authentic writings about the deeds of other apostles published, in order that
they might be preserved to

posterity, especially since John, who in his Gospel had added things which
he saw had been omitted by

the others, which however, he judged necessary for coming generations to

know, was still alive at that

time? Certainly no one will assert that this was done. And surely we will
not dare to say that this was

neglected in order that posterity might according to its own will or from
uncertain tales make up anything and everything concerning the
institutions, sayings, and deeds of the apostles. Therefore the matter stands
thus, that nothing else was written about the acts of the apostles because it
was judged that the things which Luke had published, together with the
epistles of the apostles, were sufficient for posterity.
Also in the Old Testament not all the acts either of the patriarchs or of the
prophets were recorded.

Nor did all the prophets commit their teaching to writing for posterity, yes,
God allowed the writings of

some to be lost, as those of Nathan, Gad, Shemaiah, Iddo, Ahia, Jehu, the
son of Hanani, etc., and the

rabbis say that from their unwritten traditions the Talmud was made. What
else can we answer them except this, that from all the sayings and deeds of
the patriarchs and prophets that was committed to writing under the Holy
Spirit’s guidance and selection which, as Cyril says, was judged to be
necessary

and sufficient for posterity for doctrine and morals.

This same answer we give also to the objections of the papalists. For with
respect to what belongs to

the posture of the church, to the ministry, doctrine, faith, etc., the individual
apostles had nothing peculiarly their own, but there was one faith, one and
the same doctrine, and a common ministry by which (as far as the essence
of the evangelical religion is concerned) they established one and the same

posture of the church. Therefore, even if the acts of every individual apostle
had been written, we would

not for that reason read something contrary, or different, or other, but we
would read one and the same

thing more often. What, therefore, the nature of that common ministry of
the one faith and of its doctrine was in the first and most ancient state of the
apostolic church, the Holy Spirit without doubt judged we could gather and
understand … from what Luke wrote, since he did not see to it that the acts

of each apostle were written. … For if He had judged that more was
necessary, He would without doubt
have caused them to be written for posterity by others, as He did in the
Gospel record. We shall therefore adopt the words of Augustine: “Since the
Lord at the time of the apostles did not will that the

acts of the other apostles should be written, who of us may say that they
were this way or that way? Or,

if he dares to say it, how will he prove it?”

8 But you say: In the Acts by Luke for the most part only the chief points
were recorded, but adequate and necessary explanations were not added. I
reply: These explanations are found written in

the epistles of the apostles, so that in this way nothing concerning the
apostolic doctrine which is necessary for us can be found lacking in the
Scriptures of the New Testament. Therefore we must now

inquire with what intention, for what reasons, and for what use the apostles
wrote their epistles, for this consideration will clearly show the thing we are
seeking.

9 Nicephorus writes concerning the epistles of Paul, Bk. 2, ch. 34: “He gave
epistles to most of those to whom the power and grace of the Holy Spirit
had commanded him to go, and whom the Gospel had

gloriously regenerated through faith in Christ. In them he taught the same

things which he had clearly

taught by word of mouth when he was present, and now that he was absent
he recalled them to their memory by a short writing. In this way he
afterward either with words of greater wisdom accurately and

clearly explained through his sacred writings also the things he had
previously passed over in silence as

being in the nature of a more hidden and abstruse mystery, or at least …

after the manner and form of
parables, he outlined them as it were, in riddles, neither concealing them, on
account of those who would become fit to hear divine things in the future,
nor expounding them altogether clearly and openly,

on account of the foolish and unworthy, in order to avoid contempt.”

These words of Nicephorus clearly show: (1) that the epistles of Paul were
written that they might be

“reminders,” embracing in a compendium the very same things which he

had clearly transmitted orally

and personally to those whom he had begotten again through faith in Christ;
(2) that besides, he also wanted to explain carefully and clearly in epistles
the things which, in transmitting the first beginnings of the faith, he had
passed over as mysteries of a higher wisdom; (3) That he wrote these things
not only
for those who were then present but also for those that would in the future
be fit to hear divine things;

(4) that he carefully and clearly explained the dogmas in his epistles; (5)
that, nevertheless, many things in the epistles of Paul are represented
through riddles, as it were, on account of the foolish and unworthy, in order
to avoid contempt, but that Paul so moderated these riddles that what he
wrote might

not be hidden from those who would in the future be fit to hear divine
things. This is also what Augustine means when he says, “The Holy Spirit
has gloriously and in a wholesome way so moderated

the Holy Scriptures that He might come to the aid of hunger by means of
the clear texts and ward off

pride by means of the darker ones. For almost nothing is drawn out of these
obscurities which is not found stated most clearly elsewhere.” All that we
seek cannot be shown more clearly, surely, and firmly

than from these epistles of the apostles. We shall indicate as briefly as

possible how this can be, how

one can see and observe in the epistles of the apostles out of what
considerations and for what reason

they were written, and what their use should be in the church. And in
accord with the observation of Nicephorus, we shall consider especially
these two things, namely, that the apostles wanted their epistles to be
“reminders,” comprehending in brief form what they had transmitted to the
churches by

word of mouth when they were present with them; furthermore, that they
wanted to explain carefully and clearly through their writings those things
which they judged to be still necessary for the churches

after the first principles of faith had been grasped.

10 And because it is very important to have this opinion established and
confirmed by solid arguments and firm testimonies, it is worthwhile that we
spend some time considering it. For the mind

is confirmed more by one testimony of Scripture than if 600 testimonies

should be heaped up from other

writers.

11 This could be shown from the argumentation and the unbroken context
of the separate epistles by

many and various demonstrations, out the presentation would be long and
quite wordy, and it would lead away somewhat from our purpose. Therefore
we shall note down only certain especially significant

testimonies from the epistles of the apostles in order that we may hear and
learn from the words of the

apostles themselves out of what considerations, for what reasons, and for
what purpose and use they committed to writing … the heavenly doctrine
which they had at first delivered by word of mouth.

12 It seems that the First Epistle to the Thessalonians was written before the
other epistles. The occasion and the reason why Paul wrote it can be
understood quite clearly from Acts 17 and from the

words of the epistle itself. For Paul had in a rather short time brought many
people, both of the Jews and the godfearing Gentiles, also many of the
principal matrons of Thessalonica, to faith in Christ, but he

had at once been driven out from there when the unbelieving Jews stirred
up an insurrection. He was

therefore concerned lest they should on account of the persecution either

neglect or cast off their recently accepted faith. And since he himself could
not come, he had sent Timothy there that he should
exhort them to persevere in the once accepted faith. For the same reason he
later wrote the First Epistle

to the Thessalonians, in which he not only uses these words: “Remain in the
doctrine which you have received from me by word of mouth,” but he also
repeats and recites the chief points of that doctrine

which he had delivered while present, in which he was admonishing them

to remain, that thus this epistle should be a perpetual reminder, recalling to
their memory through its repetition that doctrine which he had delivered to
them orally. But the other reason for his writing, he says, is this that he
might supply what their faith lacked. Because he was up to this time not
able to give this to them through his

return he is supplying and accomplishing it by an epistle. This plainly

agrees with the general observation of Nicephorus concerning the Pauline
epistles.

13 The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was written not long after. In
this epistle it must be observed in particular that in the second chapter the
writer expressly explains another occasion or reason why the apostles began
to commit their teaching to writing. These are his words: “We beg you

not to be shaken in mind, either by spirit or by word or by letter purporting

to be from us.” You hear that certain persons were at that time disturbing
the churches by spreading new dogmas under the pretext of

the Spirit or of revelations. Because the doctrine of the apostles had

authority on account of the testimony of the Spirit, others also arrogated this
to themselves. They boasted that they had the Spirit

and divine revelations and demanded that also their sayings should be
received with the same reverence

and devotion as those of the apostles. This was, however, easily refuted,
because only the apostles had
been chosen to be witnesses of Christ and only their doctrine was to have
such authority. When therefore these fanatical people understood that the
church was bound to that expression of doctrine which the apostles were
preaching, they thought up other ways of introducing corruptions. They
pretended that the fictions which they advanced had been delivered orally
either by Paul or by other apostles in other churches. Therefore Paul says:
“Be not shaken, either by spirit or by word, purporting

to come from us.” This pretext sounded convincing, because until just about
that time the doctrine of the

Gospel had been delivered by word of mouth only. To the apostles had been
committed not only the task

of teaching but also the supervision, lest any other than the true and sound
doctrine should be set before the churches; however, they noticed that once
the church had been spread far and wide, they themselves

could not be present everywhere to teach orally and that the purity of the
doctrine of the apostles could

not be retained and preserved everywhere either faithfully or securely by

means of traditions but that strange and lying dogmas were being spread
under this pretext and name. Therefore they began to commit their doctrine
to writing that it might not be corrupted under the name of traditions but
that the

church might be certain with respect to the true and genuine doctrine of the
apostles. But because also

spurious epistles were being foisted on the churches under the pretense that
they came from Paul or from other apostles, Paul marked his genuine
epistles with a special mark with his own hand. That these

authentic epistles of the apostles, that is, the original manuscripts, were still
preserved down to his own time in those churches to which they had been
addressed we have on the authority of Tertullian, in De
praescriptione adversus haereticos.

14 This must be diligently observed in this Second Epistle to the

Thessalonians, on what occasion and for what reason the apostles, when
they had handed down their doctrine for some years solely by

word of mouth, afterward began to commit it to writing, namely, lest

churches be troubled, either by spirit or by word, under the pretense that it
had been transmitted by the apostles. This we rightly adduce against the
papalists. For if in the first years of apostolic preaching, while the apostles
themselves were still living, the purity of the doctrine was not preserved
everywhere through traditions where the apostles could not be present in
person, but under this name and pretext various fictions were spread,

pretending that they came from the apostles, are not those people stark mad
who command us in these

last times — although Christ and the apostles foretold concerning them that
there would be such a multitude of false prophets, such powerful errors, that
if it were possible, even the elect would be led

astray — to forsake the clear light and sure rule of the Scripture and to seek
the truth and purity of the

apostolic doctrine in traditions which are now paraded and advertised … as

coming from the apostles?

Certainly we are acting more prudently and correctly when we seek the
truth and purity of the apostolic

doctrine in the Scripture, which, as very clear testimonies show, has been
transmitted to the church by

the apostles so that not anything and everything could be foisted on us

under the pretext and name of

apostolic traditions.
15 But the adherents of the pope spin an argument from this very epistle
which they set up like the full armor of Achilles against the Scripture in
behalf of their traditions. Paul says: “Hold to the traditions which you were
taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” It is therefore quite
clear, they say, that not all that needs to be held is comprehended in the
writings of the apostles but that also those things which have come down to
us through the traditions after they had been delivered orally by

the apostles must be received with equal reverence and devotion. I confess
that among all the arguments

of the papalists which they heap up against the sufficiency of Scripture in

favor of traditions none makes a greater show than this one. For Scripture
itself seems to confess its insufficiency and so to refer us to the unwritten
traditions when it says: “Hold to the traditions which you were taught by us,
either

by word of mouth or by letter.”

But I could reply: Because it was not a contrary, nor a different, nor another,
but one and the same

doctrine which Paul delivered either by word of mouth or by epistle,

therefore he rightly says: “Hold to

the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by
letter.” In the preceding words he seems to explain which traditions he
wants to have understood, for he says: “We are bound to

give thanks to God for you because He chose you to be saved in the
sanctification of the Spirit and in

the belief of the truth. In this He called you through our Gospel to obtain
the glory of our Lord Jesus

Christ.” His next word indicates that he is drawing a conclusion from what
he has just said: “So then,
hold to the traditions, etc.”

However, what has been written concerning the true traditions of the
apostles ought not at once to be

transferred to those which are proposed by the papalists under this name.
Only if they have proved as

clearly and certainly that a tradition is indubitably apostolic as the things

that have been written are proved to be apostolic, may they appeal to Paul’s
words: “Hold to the traditions which you were taught

by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” But this is still in controversy,

whether those are true apostolic traditions which are being paraded by the
papalists. When they shall have proved this, they may afterwards dispute
about this saying of Paul.

16 This I could reply to their objection, but I shall not use these answers
now but follow a little where the opponents lead us, that Andrada may
again out of a certain pity imagine that I am not at all cautious.

I therefore concede that when Paul wrote these things to the Thessalonians,
not all the things which must be held concerning the doctrine of Christ and
of the apostles had been committed to writing. For

according to the calculation of Irenaeus, which my opponent Andrada

follows, neither Matthew nor any

of the other evangelists had then written. And only the First Epistle to the
Thessalonians had then been

written by Paul, and the Second was being written only then. As it is
therefore correctly said … that in

these two epistles to the Thessalonians not everything is contained which

one must know concerning the

doctrine of Christ and of the apostles …, so Paul properly says that the
Thessalonians must not only hold that teaching which they had received
from him in the first epistle (for in it not everything was expressly and fully
contained) but also those things which they had received from him orally.
…

What I say can be most simply and clearly understood by means of a

comparison. If, when the canon

of the Old Testament Scripture had not yet been completed, anyone had
received the books of Moses in

the way in which the Sadducees did later, so that he repudiated and rejected
what was delivered by God

through the prophets, he would justly be held culpable. For at that time it
could rightly be said: Hold the doctrine which God has delivered to you,
either through the writings of Moses or by the mouth or proclamation of the
prophets. But if, after the canon of the Scripture of the Old Testament has
been

established and completed, some Cabalist or Talmudist should want to

adapt this same argument to confirm his traditions, I ask Andrada and all
the other papalists, whether this argument could stand and

be admitted: At the time of the prophets it was rightly said that the doctrine
of the Word of God should

be received and held, not only what was contained in the writings of Moses
but also what was transmitted orally by the prophets; therefore also after the
times of the prophets, after the canon of the Old Testament Scripture has
been established and completed, it must be held that not all that is necessary
to hold concerning the doctrine of the patriarchs and prophets is contained
in the books of Holy Scripture but besides also that which is being peddled
by the Pharisees and Cabalists under the name of traditions must be
received and venerated with equal respect and devotion? I do not think that

Andrada will admit this. Peter a Soto certainly denies it. How, then, do they
believe that this follows:
When Paul had first written the one epistle, he says that the Thessalonians
should hold the traditions,

not only those which they had received in this one epistle but also those
which they had learned besides

from him orally, which were not all fully contained in that single epistle,
therefore now also, after the

canon of the New Testament Scripture has been established and completed,
the same must be said concerning the imperfection and insufficiency of the
whole Scripture, so that we must in addition also

accept and venerate with the same respect and devotion which we accord
the Scripture itself what is now urged by the papalists under the title of
traditions? It is certainly perfectly clear, even if it were true what the
papalists contend with respect to traditions, that this would nevertheless by
no means follow

from this statement of Paul. For it is a far different thing to speak of the
New Testament Scripture when

only one single epistle of Paul had been published than afterwards when it
had been delivered and explained in so many books and epistles. We shall
show later that Paul, in the Epistle to Timothy, which

he wrote toward the end of his life, speaks far differently with respect to the
Scripture.

17 What the papalists can say against this clear truth, let us say, with some
semblance of verisimilitude, I really do not see, unless perhaps they should
want to insult the truth with the thunder of the anathema. Therefore as often
as you read this argument in the writings of the papalists, remember

that it is the extraordinary fallacy that something which is true under certain
conditions is always true. I would love to hear what our bombastic Andrada
will have to say against this evidence.
18 But let us proceed to the other epistles of Paul. Next after the two to the
Thessalonians, the First Epistle to Timothy seems to have been written,
either from Phrygia or from Macedonia, Acts 18, in which, as Nicephorus
says, Paul at length described “in outline” the manner and life of a bishop.
Indeed,

we do not need the testimony of Nicephorus, for Paul himself explains his
reason for writing, ch. 3:14–

15: “I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you
so that, if I am delayed, you

may know how one ought to conduct oneself in the household of God,
which is the church of the living

God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” This clearly explains on what
occasion, for what reason, and

for what use Paul wrote the First Epistle to Timothy. He had entrusted to
him the ministry in the church

at Ephesus that he should deliver and confirm the sound doctrine, refute
“those who taught another doctrine,” rebuke whatever conflicts with sound
doctrine in morals, institute and preserve rites useful for the upbuilding of
the church, ordain ministers, etc.

But that he might know how a faithful minister of Christ should rightly
conduct himself in matters

which pertain to the ministry in the church, which is not an assembly of the
wicked but the house of God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth — for this
reason and for this use, he says, he has written this

epistle. Indeed, he does not say “how you ought to conduct yourself,” but
he says indefinitely and generally “how one ought to conduct oneself, etc.,”
so that the norm may be universal. And certainly,
this is a great recommendation for this epistle. The church is the pillar and
bulwark of truth because of

the possession and preservation of the purity of the apostolic doctrine. But
as the ministry of teaching is so to be established and used that the church
does not become a den of thieves and an assembly of the

wicked but is and remains the pillar and bulwark of truth — for this reason
and to this end Paul, as he

testifies in his own words, wrote this First Epistle to Timothy.

And so in the very first chapter he at once sets down the sum of the
“charge,” that is, of that doctrine

which had been received from Christ and which he had entrusted to
Timothy that he should proclaim it.

And the commands which he writes he repeatedly calls

, chs. 1:15 and 4:9, that is, the true

apostolic Cabala from the oral tradition, received from the apostles in this
way, in order that it may be a

“sure saying and worthy of acceptance.” To these charges which he had put
in writing in this epistle, he

appeals later: “This charge I commit to you”; “I am writing this to you”; “If
you set this before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ,
nourished on the words of faith and of the good doctrine

which you have followed”; “Command and teach these things”; “Meditate
on this, remain in these things”; “In this continue, for by so doing you will
save both yourself and your hearers”; “In the presence of God I charge you
to keep these rules without favor”; “This teach and exhort,” etc. It is
therefore certain and clear for what purpose Paul wrote this epistle to
Timothy and what use he wanted

to have made of it in the church.

Tertullian, De praescriptione adversus haereticos, diligently weighs the

words, noting that Paul does not say “that” or “those things,” but “this
commandment” and “this teach,” etc. For he says: “When Paul says ‘these
things,’ he is speaking of the things concerning which he was writing at that
time. But

about hidden matters, as about absent ones, though in their joint knowledge,
he would not have said

‘these things’ but ‘those things.’” This also should be considered, that it is
not doubtful that, when Paul entrusted the ministry and supervision of the
church at Ephesus to Timothy, he himself orally delivered

and explained the things which pertain to the ministry. For he says: “As I
urged you, that you should charge,” etc. But why does he send the very
same thing in writing to Timothy not long after his departure? For he begins
the epistle thus: “As I urged you to charge, etc.” But why does he send the
same thing to Timothy in writing not long after his departure? For the
epistle begins: “As I urged you to

remain at Ephesus.” And finally in the third chapter, the “conclusion”

follows: “As I urged you. … I am

writing these instructions to you.” Certainly he did not do this because he

trusted the memory of Timothy so little but because the authority of
Timothy was not equal to apostolic authority, and he needed to have this
testimony to be able to prove clearly that the things which he declared had
been delivered by and accepted from the apostle; therefore Paul now sent to
him in writing what he had commanded him orally with respect to the
ministry, that no one, as he says, might despise his youth but

that he might both be certain himself and might be able to prove and
confirm to others that this was the
charge entrusted to him by Paul and that the church might be certain that
Timothy was a good minister

of Christ when he set these things before the brethren.

But would not the mere assertion of Timothy have sufficed, if he had
affirmed that he had received by

oral tradition from Paul the things which he set before them? Certainly the
writing of Paul would not

have been necessary, if he had summoned the papalists to counsel him

concerning the authority of the

unwritten traditions. The fact that he wanted to commit that which he had
orally entrusted to Timothy to

writing shows sufficiently for what purpose he did this, and what use he
judged should be made of the

Scripture in the New Testament, namely, that he who boasts that he is

bringing apostolic doctrine must

also show such a testimony. To this must also be added that Timothy did not
remain in Ephesus long or

continuously, as the history of the Acts shows. Therefore Paul wrote in this
way that they might, after

the departure of Timothy, have an apostolic picture of the ministry, how one
must conduct oneself in the

church, which is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

19 These are indeed very clear testimonies, and if anyone should voice the
objection against them that the general chief points of the things which
belong to the ministry are indeed set down in this epistle, such as statements
concerning the wholesome words of Christ, concerning the apostolic
teaching about godliness, but that no full and adequate explanations are
found in them, I reply: The wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ we
have in the writings of the evangelists, but the doctrine

of the apostles is more fully explained in their other epistles. If anyone

argues stubbornly that beside that which was written down in this epistle
and in other writings of the New Testament other things were also
transmitted which are equally necessary for us, I answer in the words of
Augustine: “Since

the Holy Spirit did not want to have these things written, who will say that
it was either this or that?

And if anyone will be so rash and bold that he dares to say it, how will he
prove it?”

20 Concerning the things which were written we are certain that they were
transmitted by the apostles and that they were written that we might be
certain concerning them. For there can be no faith concerning uncertain
things. Therefore let us leave such things to those who forsake sure and
necessary

things and prefer to occupy themselves with uncertain things; let us be

content with those things which

were written that faith might be sure.

21 The situation is the same in the case of the Epistle to Titus, which was
written after the First Epistle to the Corinthians from Nicopolis, Acts 20.
Because of the similarity of the argument, we shall

set down concerning this epistle only what is of importance for our
undertaking. “This is why,” he says,

“I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective and appoint
elders.” Is it therefore either

uncertain and unknown, or does it have to be divined from the traditions of

the papalists, what things
Titus was to correct in Crete, how he was to do them according to Paul’s
direction — things which Paul,

hurrying off to other places, could not take care of — and how he was to
ordain the elders? Paul certainly wrote the Epistle to Titus for this reason
and to this end, even as he refers to the things which he is writing: “These
things speak”; “I desire that you insist on these things.”

Because Paul left Ephesus by a route to Macedonia, he came to Crete on

this route, and from there

Epirus is closest, where Nicopolis is situated. Therefore a few days after his
departure from Crete, Paul

wrote this Epistle to Titus, repeating what he had in his presence

commanded him orally. But why did

he do this when, after the lapse of only a few days, these commands were
still fresh in the memory of

Titus, and there was no danger that Titus would corrupt the doctrine? I
reply: He himself indicates the

reason in ch. 2:15: “Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all
authority. Let no one disregard you,” and in ch. 3:8: “The saying is sure. I
desire you to insist on these things.” Now Titus could have

truly affirmed that he was doing the things which he did in teaching,
exhorting, reproving, and correcting by the command of Paul, which he had
received a few days previously from him by word of

mouth. But you see the aim of Paul, that he wanted his orders
comprehended in writing: (1) that Titus

himself might be certain that what he preached was a faithful saying, which
he could and should rightly

and deservedly uphold; (2) that the church might have the testimony, that
what Titus proclaimed so earnestly was a faithful saying, that therefore the
things which Titus did in carrying out his ministry through teaching,
exhorting, reproving, and correcting might not be despised but have
authority as delivered and commanded by an apostle, that he might be able
to teach, exhort, and reprove with all power. For these reasons Paul judged
that it was not sufficient for Titus only to affirm that he had received these
things orally from the apostle, but he sent these commands to Titus in
writing for the reasons which he himself … indicates in the epistle. If,
therefore, at that time when Paul was not only

still living but was present in a place near by and had only a few days
previously orally given his commands to Titus, whom he calls his true son,
whom the Cretans had seen not only as a traveling companion of Paul but
as an associate in his ministry — if, I say, Paul at that time judged that the
mere

appeal to tradition in the things belonging to the ministry was not sufficient
for those who were not themselves apostles but taught the doctrine
delivered by the apostles, but that a written testimony was

necessary by which they could prove and confirm that their message was
sure and not to be despised by

anyone but was to be declared with all authority (for these are the words of
Paul), why, then, do the papalists now in these last times of the world
contend that things are to be received as apostolic traditions which, as they
themselves do not blush to confess, can by no means be proved and
established

from the Scripture? We certainly learn from the apostle how Titus was to
prove and confirm to the

Cretans that the message which he earnestly proclaimed was certain and
faithful and not to be despised but set forth on apostolic authority. And now
the reader can judge concerning this whole controversy.

For we are being castigated by our adversaries most of all because we teach
that one must follow this
safe counsel of Paul, especially in these last times when the world is
growing old, for many clear prophecies are found in the Scripture
concerning the dangers of these times as far as corruption of the

doctrine is concerned.

22 What we have shown from Paul’s own words, namely, from what
considerations, for what reasons,

and for what use he wrote his epistles, can indeed be attacked and
bespattered with sophistries, according to the stratagem of Phormio:
“Nothing is stated so well that it cannot be marred through slander.” But
they will by no means be able to shake it by true and solid arguments. Let
us therefore proceed to the remaining writings of Paul.

23 The First Epistle to the Corinthians seems to have been written at

Ephesus. For Paul says that he will remain at Ephesus until Pentecost. And
at the end he says: “The churches of Asia send greetings.”

And together with these he names also Aquila and Priscilla, whom Paul had
left at Ephesus, Acts 19.

Therefore Paul wrote this epistle to the Corinthians not long after his
departure. Our purpose is only to

inquire with what intent, for what reasons, and for what use he wrote this
epistle.

24 We find at once in his opening words that Paul did not want the use of
this epistle confined only to the Corinthian church because of a present
necessity. For he addresses it to “all those who in every place call upon the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.” Let this be
observed first because of the subterfuge of Pighius, as though Paul had
written his epistles only for certain particular

churches and only for use in a then present necessity.

25 The causes on account of which he wrote this epistle can also be
gathered from his own words.

There were divisions among the Corinthians: “I belong to Paul, I belong to

Apollos, I belong to Cephas,

I belong to Christ,” that is: Because some had received the doctrine from
Paul, some from Apollo, a most eloquent man, some from Peter, who had
walked with Christ in the flesh, and some also had come

there who had seen Christ in the flesh and had heard Him teach, therefore
there was fighting among the

Corinthians over the questions which traditions were the more excellent.
But Paul shows that they are to

judge not by distinguishing among the persons of the teachers but from the
unity and truth of the doctrine. “For no other foundation can anyone lay
than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” “He

who plants and he who waters are equal.” This circumstance of the time is
worthy of consideration, because Paul first began to commit his doctrine to
writing after he had been given the right hand of fellowship, Gal. 2:9, and
agreement concerning the doctrine between him and the other apostles had
been publicly declared, that we might be certain that in the epistles of Paul
that doctrine is contained which was common to all the apostles, lest
anyone should be able to argue that we have only the doctrine of Paul but
not that of the rest of the apostles in the writings of the New Testament.

But because some among the Corinthians had departed from that form of
doctrine which they had received by oral tradition from Paul, and certain
corruptions had begun to creep in concerning sin, concerning the Lord’s
Supper, concerning the resurrection of the dead, etc., Paul wanted to
commit the

chief points of his tradition to writing in this epistle; for instance, how he
had laid the foundation, how he had given the Corinthians milk to drink. He
says: “I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him
crucified.” Therefore he calls his preaching “the word of the cross.” And in
ch.

15:13, he says: “The Gospel which you received, in which you stand, I
preached to you in this manner.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ
died,” etc. And he adds:

“Whether it is I or the other apostles, so we preach, and so you believed.”

Therefore he preached and

delivered the doctrine of Christ as we now have it written down by the

evangelists. And this he calls the

foundation in ch. 3:10. So also, in ch. 11:23–25, he repeats the instruction

concerning the Lord’s Supper

in the same words in which it is found with the evangelists. And by way of
introduction he says: “For I

received from the Lord what I also delivered to you.”

There was therefore one reason for writing, as Nicephorus says, “because
the absent Paul wanted to

recall to their memory by means of a written epistle the things which he had
clearly taught them by word of mouth when he had been present with them,
because they had forsaken some of the traditions.”

And let this be noted diligently, that the purity of the apostolic doctrine was
not long guarded among the Corinthians through preservation of the oral
tradition but began to be corrupted within a very short time.

But if this happened in the very first years of apostolic preaching, while the
apostles were still living, what must we suppose happened to the traditions
during so many centuries after the death of the apostles, and especially in
these last times of the world? If already at that time the writings of the
apostles were necessary for the preservation of the purity of the doctrine,
how much more is this way

and manner necessary now?

26 Paul himself also shows another reason why he wrote the First Epistle to
the Corinthians. For when the foundation had been laid, and there could be
no doubt that the building was to be erected on it,

some indeed under this pretext built upon it gold, silver, precious stones;
others, however, wood, hay,

stubble. And let this be observed that, while the apostles were still living,
yes, not long after the departure of Paul, some among the Corinthians began
to build wood, hay, stubble on the foundation.

That therefore it might not be uncertain, now that the foundation had been
laid, what apostolic structure

was to be built on it, Paul himself shows in writing what is the gold, silver,
precious stones, and what

the apostolic structure which is to be built on the foundation. From this it is

also possible to distinguish the wood, hay, stubble which are built upon it
by others.

And so we possess in writing the whole building of God (whose builders

are the apostles), namely,

the foundation and that which is to be built upon it. And what use Paul
wanted to have made of this writing in the church is clear from the fact that
he addressed the epistle to “all those who in every place call on the name of
Christ.”

Paul had sent Timothy to the Corinthians, ch. 4:17, “to remind you of my
ways in Christ,” that is, “he

will bring back to your memory my ways, which you have forgotten.” But
at the same time he gives him an instruction, or a letter of credentials (as we
commonly say) in this epistle, showing what kind of

“reminder” this ought to be, in order that Timothy might be able to prove
from it that he had received

from Paul by way of commandments what he was telling them. And Paul
had needed to employ this caution, for everywhere the churches were being
deceived by speeches purporting to come from Paul, 2

Thess. 2:2.

27 But if anyone should argue either that certain chief points of the
apostolic doctrine or at least adequate explanations are missing in this
epistle, we answer simply that we do not embrace any one epistle of Paul in
such a way that we do not look at and compare the others; but we consult
and compare

all the writings of the New Testament and assert that we have in them, as far
as is necessary and sufficient, the chief points of the apostolic doctrine and
adequate explanations, as Paul himself will confirm later, 1 Tim. 3. In this
place, 1 Cor. 4:17, he says: “As I teach everywhere in every church.”

That therefore also that is to be consulted and compared which is known to

have been delivered by Paul

in the other churches is certain from his writings. Paul wanted his co-
workers to use this demonstration

while he was still alive, as we have already shown. For this reason he gave
them his orders in writing.

28 But they say: “Paul says, when he speaks of the Lord’s Supper, 1 Cor.
11:34: ‘About the other things I will give directions when I come.’ Ergo:
Paul later delivered orally to the Corinthians the things which are now
observed in the Mass of the papalists.” So say the Jesuits.

This is certainly a daring deduction, but it is as easy to despise it as it is to

approve it. But surely it follows, someone may say, that Paul wanted to set
in order by word of mouth certain things which he

did not put in writing. But does he promise more and different dogmas
concerning the Lord’s Supper?

He certainly says of that which he was writing: “I received from the Lord
what I also delivered to you.”

He could therefore promise neither more nor other dogmas concerning the
Lord’s Supper than those which he had received from the Lord. Therefore
he is speaking about certain outward ceremonies. For

so, ch. 16:1, he uses the word

(“to order,” “give direction”) when he directs them that on the

first day of the week an alms is to be set aside. Paul, however, carefully
distinguishes the things concerning which he has a command of the Lord
from the unessential rites which are ordered for the edification of the
church. For such are not like perpetual and universal dogmas, as the custom
of the uncovered and veiled head, ch. 11:3–16. Since, therefore, he did not
want to put into writing what he

wanted to order when he would be present, who of us can say, it was this or
that? Or, if one should dare

to say it, how will he prove it?

29 But I see that in consequence of these observations our writing is getting

longer than I had intended. I would therefore prefer to comprehend in a
general remark what still remains concerning the
other epistles; but I find that something special which concerns the
explanation and confirmation of our

work can profitably be drawn from almost every single epistle. And since
these testimonies which are

taken from the apostolic epistles themselves are the most certain of all, by
which pious hearts can be confirmed most correctly against all sophistry,
we shall go through the whole list as briefly as possible.

30 The Second Epistle to the Corinthians was written from Macedonia not
long after the first, for this reason: Paul had learned from Titus, on his
return, among other things also this, that his teaching was

being brought into contempt by certain persons among the Corinthians

under the pretext that the authority of the other apostles ought to be greater
because they had walked with Christ for a number of

years. Therefore he vindicates the authority of his ministry and says, ch.
12:11–13: “I am not at all inferior to these superlative apostles. … In what
were you less favored than the rest of the churches,”

etc. You see again that the church was disturbed by disputes about the living
traditions of the apostles.

This indeed properly concerns our undertaking that at that time it began to
be urged by false brethren

that the absent Paul in his epistles was far different from the Paul who was
present in word and deed.

This is gathered from chapters 1, 10, and 13. Therefore he repeats several
times: “What we say by letter

when absent we do when present” (ch. 10:11); “I warned those who sinned
before … and I warn them

now while absent, as I did when present” (ch. 13:2). A most beautiful
statement is found in ch. 1:13:
“We write you nothing but what you can read and understand.” He uses two
words,

, which

the Greek glosses correctly interpret: “to recognize again through

remembering something that had previously been delivered and known,”
and

, which means: “to know well,” “to know for

certain,” “to have searched out.” When Paul’s enemies gave him the
occasion, he himself expressly testified concerning his epistles that he wrote
nothing in them except what he had delivered by word of

mouth when he was present, so that the readers of the epistles should
recognize in them the doctrine previously delivered. Basil uses the word

in a way that agrees beautifully with this when

he says: “I recognized your letter, as children that are not degenerate are
recognized by their resemblance to their parents.” So, Paul says, his epistles
are recognized by the doctrine which he had

delivered orally when he was present. The same things, therefore, of which
he had delivered knowledge

orally to the churches, he afterward expressed in his epistles. For he does

not say, “I write you something different from what you recognize and
know.” In 1 Cor. 14:37–38, he employs this word to

mean that he submits his epistles to the recognition or judgment of those

who were prophets or spiritual.

For in ch. 2:15 he had said: “The spiritual man judges all things.” In ch.
14:37 he says: “If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should
acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord.”
Therefore the epistles of Paul were approved by the public testimony and
judgment of the church, although his adversaries belittled them. This
testimony of Paul concerning his

epistles, given at a time when his adversaries were beginning to disparage

them, must be diligently noted: as he was in his speech when he was
present, so he is also in his letters. Therefore now no less

nor in any other way do we have Paul as our teacher than when he built the
churches with an oral, living

presentation. And these transmissions of Paul we welcome from the heart,

honor, and highly prize.

31 We come now to the Epistle to the Romans. Lindanus takes it amiss that
we take it to be a methodical presentation of the Christian faith. But let Paul
himself explain to us for what purpose he wrote this epistle. He says, ch.
1:11–12: “That I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you,
that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both
yours and mine.” And ch.

15:14–15, he says: “I know that you are filled with all knowledge. But on
some points I have written to

you very boldly by way of reminder, because of the grace given me by God
to be the minister of Jesus

Christ to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the Gospel of God, so that
the offering of the Gentiles

may be acceptable, etc.” What, therefore, he could not do with his presence
he wanted to accomplish
through the epistle, namely, to confirm the faith which he and the Romans
had in common; and he wanted to do this by recalling this faith to their
memory, so that in the Epistle to the Romans he might

be the minister of Christ, rendering the priestly service of the Gospel among
the Gentiles, as he had fully preached it from Jerusalem to Illyricum. He
adds that he wrote this epistle when he was undertaking a journey to
Jerusalem. And concerning this journey he says in Acts 20:23–25: “The
Holy

Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await

me in Jerusalem. I know that

you will see my face no more, etc.” When, therefore, he set out for
Jerusalem, seemingly to die, he wrote this epistle in order that, if anything
should happen to him, he might leave behind him a written

account of how he had administered the Gospel of God among the Gentiles
and what this Gospel of Christ was, which he had “fulfilled,” that is, which
he had sufficiently and fully preached from Jerusalem and as far as
Illyricum. To this end he treats and explains in the Epistle to the Romans,
with

an adequate explanation, more fully and in greater detail, the chief points of
doctrine which he had only

enumerated in the other epistles; and he does this in a most beautiful

system.

32 Therefore we have in the epistles of Paul not merely a bare catalog of the
chief points of the doctrine which he delivered orally but also adequate
explanations, and an indication of the order and system in which they were
presented by Paul. For this reason the Epistle to the Romans is deservedly

commended by our people. For it contains the system in which the faith,
which both Paul and the Romans held, was taught; it contains the sum of
the Gospel which Paul “fulfilled,” that is, fully preached from Jerusalem all
the way to Illyricum. And this it contains in such a way that it shows and
explains the foundations from which this doctrine is defended and
confirmed. For he says: “To strengthen you.” And it was written at a time
when Paul, because of a crisis which threatened his life,

wanted to leave it behind as his confession of faith and doctrine. And

because the faith of the Romans

was then being praised in the whole world, he addressed this epistle to
them, that in this way the confession of Paul might become known to the
churches in all the world and that it might be found all

the more acceptable.

Theodoret asks why the epistle to the Romans was put in the first place,
although it was not the first

to be written. He replies that this was done because it contains doctrine of

every kind and an accurate

and detailed discussion of the dogmas.

33 All these things, so clear, firm, and full of comfort, Lindanus attempts to
escape by means of one word: “Because Paul says, Rom. 15:15: ‘I have
written the more boldly to you

(“in part”),’

therefore he did not want all doctrines that are necessary for faith contained
in this epistle. For he says that he wrote ‘in part.’” But what if the

is to be referred not to the words “I have written,”

but to the adverb “more boldly,” so that the meaning is: I have written a
little bit, or somewhat, more

boldly to you, as this expression is used in 2 Cor. 2:5: “He has caused pain
not to me but
(‘in some measure’) to you all”? And even if we prefer to connect it with
the words “I have written,”

nevertheless Paul says in 1 Cor. 13:9: “We know in part, and we prophesy
in part.” He says also in 2

Cor. 1:13: “I hope you will understand fully, as you have understood in
part.” Shall we say, therefore,

that Paul had also orally not delivered all the things that were necessary?
Thus we shall finally have

everything neither in the Scripture nor in the traditions of the apostles. But
let us concede that the institution of Baptism and of the Lord’s Supper, the
entire history concerning the words and deeds of Christ, concerning virgins,
concerning the Antichrist, concerning excommunication, concerning the
last

judgment, concerning ceremonies, which are described in the First Epistle

to Timothy, etc., are not contained in the Epistle to the Romans. If therefore

signifies this, that certain chief points of

doctrine are not contained in the Epistle to the Romans, we are able to show
and prove which these are

from the other writings of the New Testament. The papalists, however, refer
the

not only to

the Epistle to the Romans but to the whole Scripture of the Old and of the
New Testament. And by the
remaining things, which are not contained in the Epistle to the Romans,
they want not only things to be

understood which are found in other places of Scripture, but principally

what they themselves foist upon

the church under the title of traditions. This, however, Paul does not say,
when he says

. But if

the papalists press the matter, we shall reply with the words of Augustine,
which we have already quoted several times: “If they have not been written,
who of us, who possess neither prophetic nor apostolic authority, will say
that it was either this or that, or, if anyone dares to say it, how will he prove
it?”. … It is not enough that the papalists pretend that something is a
tradition. For although Timothy

and Titus could have pretended this more truly, Paul nevertheless … gave
them the epistles in order that

they might prove the authority and truth of the things they proclaimed from
his writings when Paul himself could not be present. For it was the duty of
the apostles either to transmit the sound doctrine themselves or to approve
and confirm the doctrine transmitted by others, if it was true; or if it was
found to be different, they were to point this out and refute it. And this they
did orally wherever and to the extent that they could. Thus in Acts 8:14
Peter and John are sent to approve and confirm the preaching

of Philip with apostolic authority. But where they could not be present with
the living voice, they effected this through epistles, as we have shown in the
case of Paul. Therefore we rightly demand such

documents, such a demonstration and proof, when anything is set before us

as apostolic tradition.

Meanwhile we are content with the things contained in the Scripture.

34 These are the epistles which Paul wrote before his captivity. But
concerning those which he sent to the churches when he was in bonds in
Rome it cannot be established with certainty in what order they

were written; nor does it affect our undertaking greatly, since we are only
inquiring with what purpose,

for what reasons, and for what use in the church they were written.
Therefore we shall speak of them in

the order in which they are commonly placed. The Epistle to the Galatians
itself indicates for what reasons and for what use it was written. For the
Galatians had departed and been led away from the doctrine of the Gospel
which they had received by oral tradition from Paul. In what manner,
however,

and under what appearance or pretext the Gospel had been perverted among
those who had before received Paul as an angel of God, yes, as Christ
Himself, the epistle itself clearly shows. Opinions were

paraded as having been delivered by the other apostles, who, it was said,
did not show such an abhorrence of the Law and its works as Paul did, and
it was argued that the authority of those who had

walked with Christ and who were aware of all His secrets was rightly to be
preferred to Paul. We shall

not undertake a full explanation of the argument of the Epistle to the

Galatians, but shall present only

this observation, that purity of the doctrine had not been faithfully
preserved through tradition among

the Galatians, but that under the title and pretext of traditions supposedly
received from the other apostles the church had been disturbed and the pure
body of doctrine infected with the leaven of corruption, as Paul himself
says. The Galatians had not, however, wholly rejected the profession of the
Gospel, for it can be seen clearly from this epistle that they had retained the
history of the Old Testament and the history concerning Christ. But Paul
declares that the Gospel was falsified among them because they had lost the
distinction between the Law and the Gospel and the true office and use

of both by allowing them to be mixed, because they had not correctly and
clearly preserved the pure doctrine about sin, about the works of the Law,
about justification by faith, and about the renewal which

follows it. And this must be diligently observed, that the doctrine of the
Gospel does not consist only in a historical narration of, or assent to, the
words and deeds of Christ and the other things which are related in the
sacred Scripture but that it is chiefly placed in their true interpretation and
application to repentance, faith, justification, hope, and charity. This is what
Paul is working on in the Epistle to the Galatians.

35 Let us consider what kind of remedy Paul applied to these corruptions

which had been sown under

the pretext of traditions. He asserts the authority of his ministry with many
arguments, and leads the Galatians back to that Gospel which they had
previously received from him by word of mouth. And he

adds: “If either we apostles or an angel from heaven should preach another
Gospel than that which you

have received, let him be anathema.” But does he pass over or cloak in
silence what those traditions were to which he recalls the Galatians? Surely
he has undertaken the writing of this epistle with the object of explaining
and confirming what he had delivered orally among the Galatians
concerning the

doctrine of the Gospel, namely, concerning Jesus Christ, the Crucified (in
whom the whole story of Christ is summed up), and concerning the true
application, explanation, and use of this story. It is not

necessary, therefore, that we divine, either from conjectures or from the

rumor of unwritten traditions,

the nature of the Gospel which Paul had proclaimed to the Galatians and
which the Galatians had accepted. For Paul put it in writing and amply
explained it in the Epistle to the Galatians. Jerome correctly says: “It is the
doctrine of the Holy Spirit which is set forth in the canonical writings; if the
councils declare anything contrary to this, I hold it to be wicked.” Therefore
Paul says: “If anyone has

preached to you a Gospel contrary to that which we preached to you and

which you received, let him be

anathema.” That Gospel, however, which Paul had preached and which the
Galatians had accepted has

been written; therefore both Basil and Augustine rightly apply this
statement to the Scriptures: “If anyone proclaims anything beside the
teaching which is comprehended and transmitted in the Scripture,

let him be anathema.” For Paul does not only say “If contrary to” but “if
beside”; 14 even if it be but a little leaven, the purity of the whole lump is
corrupted, he says in Gal. 5:9. And in Gal. 4:19 he says,

“My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed
in you.” And how does Paul

give birth to the Galatians? Certainly by that doctrine which he has

expounded in this epistle; and by that same doctrine they had previously
been regenerated. We have therefore in the Epistle to the Galatians that
doctrine by which the children of God are begotten and by which they are
born again if

they have fallen, that Christ may be formed in them. And in ch. 6:16 he
concludes this epistle thus:
“Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this canon, this norm, or this
rule.” I repeat what has previously been quoted from Tertullian: “If Paul
had wanted that anything else over and above that which he had written
should be understood, he would have mentioned ‘that’ or ‘yon’ rule.” But
he says

“by this rule,” therefore he clearly understands it of the things which he had
written. And he does not

simply say in the present tense “who walk” but “as many as shall walk” to
show that this epistle was

written not only for the benefit of the Galatians and because of their present
necessity, but, as Ps. 102:18

declares: “Let this be recorded for a generation to come, that it may be used
by the people who shall be

created.” 15

36 Without doubt the term “canonical Scripture” is derived from this, for

is the military term

for “ranks” lined up and placed over against the enemy according to a
definite pattern. And when trees

are planted according to a definite layout and rule, we say that the area is
laid out

(“according to rule”). Both meanings fit our situation beautifully, that we

may according to a definite rule “follow the example of faith” (Rom. 4:12).
That we may not go astray and that we may be forearmed against the
attacks of the enemies of the faith, it is necessary that we walk according to
a certain order and be held in, as it were, by certain restrictions, in order
that we may not overstep the line which is, as it were, the rule of that order.
What that “rule” is for them Paul shows when he says of what he had
written: “by this rule.” And he uses the future tense to signify what use he
wanted made of his

writings in the church by posterity, namely, that they should be the rule of
faith, so that peace and mercy be upon those whose faith marches according
to this rule. And what more do we seek than that the peace and mercy of
God may be upon us who believe? And we should gratefully praise this
good gift of

God, that he has established this rule in the Scripture for us in a definite
way. If our faith will walk according to it, we are certain that peace and
mercy are upon us.

37 In the Epistle to the Ephesians, ch. 3:3, 4 there is found a striking

statement concerning the intention, purpose, and use of the epistles of Paul:
“… as I have written briefly. When you read this you

can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ.” … The Vulgate

rendered it: “In order that you may
understand when you read.” So also Chrysos-tom interprets it, exclaiming:
“Well, well! So he neither wrote everything, nor as much as was necessary
to write; for the nature of the matter did not allow it.”

Theophylact says: “I have not written as much as is necessary but as much

as is in keeping with your

understanding.” Oecumenius writes: “See, he has written only so much as

they could comprehend.”

And the preposition

is used thus at times in relative statements:

, “in relation to the size

of his body,”

, “in relation to the size of the city.” There is also the expression

, “as it seemed best,” and

, “as people commonly think.” Beyond

that the preposition

with the accusative case has other meanings which agree well with the
thought

of Paul. Thus Thucydides says: “They suspect him from his letters.” In
German we say: “Man kennt ihn

an seiner Sprache, an seinem Schreiben.” Luther translates Paul’s statement:

“Daran ihr merken könnt.”

In Latin it cannot be rendered better than: “unde, or ex quibus, you can

understand.” Also this expression is related: “The things that are according
to the norm of truth and of the laws are beautiful
and honorable.” So Plutarch speaks of “walking, with the light showing the
way.” Therefore, what Paul

says in Eph. 3:4:

, must mean either, as the ancient interpreter has it, “according as

you can understand,” or “whence, or from which, you can understand”:

“daran ihr könnt merken,” or

“according to which as a norm you can understand as you read.” These all
individually shed light on the

statement of Paul to show what he himself wanted to put into his writings.

38 The intended sense will be learned if we consider the following. In ch.

1:13–14 he calls it the Gospel of salvation, by which, after they had
embraced it by faith, both Jews and Gentiles were sealed

with the promised Holy Spirit for a redemption of possession. He prays that
the eyes of their hearts may

be enlightened, that they may know what is the hope of their calling, what
are the riches of the inheritance, what is the power of God toward the
believers, etc. In ch. 2:17, 20 he says: “Christ came”

(namely, through the ministry) “and preached peace to you who were far off
and peace to those who were near.” “You are built upon the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being

the chief cornerstone.” In ch. 3:2, 3, 8: “Assuming that you have heard of
the stewardship of God’s grace that was given to me for you, how the
mystery was made known to me by revelation … that I should preach the
Gospel among the Gentiles, etc.” But see how Paul refers all this to his
writings. For

he says: “As I have written briefly. When you read this you can perceive my
insight into the mystery of
Christ.” This statement is especially worthy of careful consideration. For
Paul, as he bids farewell to the elders of the church at Ephesus, says Acts
20:27: “I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.”
However, writing to them from his bonds in Rome, he repeats the summary
and chief

points, that Christ through the ministry had preached peace to both Gentiles
and Jews; that first the Jews and thereafter the Gentiles had in faith
accepted the Gospel of salvation; that Paul himself had preached

the Gospel, which he had received by revelation of the Son of God, among
the Gentiles; that the Ephesians had heard it and through it had been built
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,

etc. Of all these things, he finally says: “As I have written briefly. When
you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery.”

These words should be weighed a little more carefully. The

Oecumenius interprets as “a little

while ago” or as “in a few words,” or “briefly.” But if

means “a little while ago,” then the verb

must not simply mean “I have written above, or previously,” for that would
be tautology; it
must have another meaning, which fits beautifully here. Now,

refers to a writing displayed in

a public place so that it may be read by all; as the edicts of magistrates or

the rescripts of emperors are put on display. We have shown above from
Hab. 2:2 how the prophets were accustomed to write down

and display a summary of their sermons: “The Lord said: ‘Write the vision;
make it plain upon tablets,

so he may run who reads it.’”16 For this reason Paul in Rom. 15:4 applies
to the Scripture of the Old Testament the verb

(“written before”), and in our passage he applies this to his own

writings, that they are, as it were,

, that is, tablets containing a summary of the doctrine of

the Gospel, put up for public display so that anyone may read this summary.

But he says that in his earlier writings he wrote this briefly and in a few
words. For he had without

doubt delivered the doctrine of the Gospel in more words, both during his
three years among the Ephesians and elsewhere. But that the Scripture
might not for this reason be accused of imperfection or

insufficiency, he adds: “When you read this you can perceive my insight
into the mystery of Christ.” If

we follow the understanding of Chrysostom, it will be a statement of the

reason why he wanted to commit to writing briefly and in few words what
he had delivered in many words and lengthy speeches,

namely, in order that by reading they might be able to understand the

insight of Paul into the mystery of
Christ.

39 Paul relates in 2 Cor. 12:2–4 that he was caught up to the third heaven,
and heard “words which

cannot be spoken,” that is, mysteries which cannot be explained in words.

Therefore he could not explain his whole knowledge of the mystery of
Christ sufficiently and fully in human words, even if he

could have spoken with the tongues of angels and men, according to 1 Cor.
13. Nevertheless, he asserts

here that he has written both briefly and in such a manner that those who
read might be able to understand his insight into the mystery of Christ.
Therefore the fact that Paul wrote in few words and

briefly cannot justly be turned into an accusation of the Scriptures by the

papalists, as if they were incomplete and insufficient. But we should all the
more gratefully accept this benefit of the Holy Spirit

with the greatest reverence, because He intentionally set bounds to the

Scripture in this way, in order that, when we read it, we may be able to
understand it. From this it is also possible to judge how great a presumption
it is to be unwilling to be content with what has been written because the
apostles delivered

the doctrine in more words and at greater length.

Epiphanius tells that the Cajani had fabricated a book which they called The
Ascension of Paul. The occasion they took from this, that they judged that
the inexpressible words which Paul had heard in the

third heaven — inexpressible because he was not able to explain them to

those who were then still carnal and ignorant — were nevertheless
necessary to know besides what was extant in writing, and they were able to
pretend that Paul had at that time written as much as they were able to
understand but
that later also the other things were delivered and written for the more
perfect. But this is nonsense and fraud. Let us therefore be content with
those things which were written briefly and simply because of

our slowness and infirmity.

40 But if the preposition

is taken in a different way, the sense will be that Paul did indeed write

in few words but nevertheless in such a way that his readers could
understand from his writing what the

nature of his understanding was on the mystery of Christ. Therefore if the

question is asked what that

mystery was, the knowledge of which Paul received from the revelation of
the Son of God, which he

proclaimed among the Gentiles, which the believers, both Jews and
Gentiles, accepted, which the Ephesians heard when Paul proclaimed to
them the whole counsel of God, through which they were built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets; Paul answers that he wrote in few
words, yet (“in such a way”) that from it, as according to a norm, it is
possible to understand what is his

knowledge in the mystery of Christ. Dear God, what more do we seek? For
this is that unity of faith and

of the knowledge of the Son of God concerning which he speaks in ch. 4:2–
16, on account of which He

gives some to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, pastors, that we

may not be carried about with every wind of doctrine through the
wickedness of men, etc. This certainly shows clearly what authority
Paul wanted to have accorded to his writings, and it offers a clear refutation
of the papalist objection concerning the brevity and narrowness of the
Scripture.

41 The Epistle to the Philippians also furnishes an important testimony

about the question which we are investigating, namely, for what purpose,
for what reason, and for what use the apostles committed

their doctrine to writing. Thus ch. 3:1 says: “To write the same things to you
is not irksome to me, and it is safe for you.” The words “the same things”
cannot be referred to some other epistles which he had

previously written to the Philippians, for this cannot be proved. They must
therefore be referred to the

things that he had taught them orally while he was with them, as he says,
ch. 4:9: “What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me.”

Thus Paul himself testifies that he wrote the very same things which he had
delivered orally when he

was with them. And he adds the reason why he wanted to commit the very
same things to writing. He

says: “It is not irksome to me,” that is, I do not find this difficult to do, as
though it made me ashamed, as though I were doing something superfluous
and unnecessary, namely, also to write those same things

which I delivered orally. But for you, says he, it is a safeguard that I commit
to writing the same things which I delivered orally. But what emphasis the
word “safe” has, and how beautifully it shows for what

reason and for what use Paul committed to writing the very same doctrine
which he delivered orally, we

showed above when we were dealing with the writing of Luke, namely, that
we should be certain and
safe with respect to the truth of the apostolic doctrine, and that we should be
able to preserve its purity in a more certain, firm, and sure manner against
the inroads of corruptions, as Paul also shows here. For

when he has said: “It is safe for you,” he immediately adds: “Look out for
the dogs, look out for the evil workers, etc.”

In ch. 3:16 Paul says: “Let us walk by the rule to which we have attained.”
But what is that rule?

Without doubt it is that doctrine which he had in his presence transmitted

orally. But Paul affirms that

he is writing the very same things. What the rule of Paul therefore is we
have in his writings, and we

have this by his own testimony, for he says that he is writing “the same
things.”

And in ch. 4:8–9 he says concerning the things which he had written:
“Think about these things which you have learned and received and heard
and seen in me.” Therefore he connects what he had delivered orally with
what he was writing, so that he says: “Think about these things which you
have

heard, etc.” This would not be correctly spoken, if different things had been
delivered than were being

written. For then he would have had to say: “Think about those things, or
think about these, and besides

about what you have heard.” But he says: “Think about these things which
ye have both heard and learned.” Therefore he shows that they are
altogether the same things.

42 For these reasons Paul wrote to those churches which he had founded
personally and by his oral
teaching. The Colossians, however, and the Laodiceans had not seen his
face in the flesh, as he says in

Col. 2:1. But for what purpose, for what reasons, and for what use did he
write to those who had not

received the doctrine of the Gospel by his oral transmission? He himself

answers in ch. 2:1, 2, 4, 8: “I

want you to know how greatly I strive for you and for all who have not seen
my face in the flesh, that

their hearts may be encouraged as they are knit together in love, to have all
the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery. I
say this in order that no one may delude you with

beguiling speech.” Likewise: “See to it that no one makes a prey of you by

philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, etc.” The
Colossians had learned to know the Gospel from Epaphras. Paul wrote to
them: (1) that from the written endorsement of the apostle they might have
the

full assurance” (

) that what they had received from Epaphras, who was not an apostle, was

not an uncertain or corrupted dogma but the genuine Gospel, which was
preached in the whole world;

(2) that they might not be seduced either through philosophy, or through the
traditions of men, etc. And

Paul shows that solicitude in this matter was his responsibility as an apostle,
so that he calls it a

“struggle” that nothing false should be spread under his name or that of the
other apostles. Accordingly,
where he cannot be present with the living voice, he satisfies his duty by
writings.

When Epaphras asserted that the doctrine which he was setting before the
Colossians was the

tradition of Paul and of the other apostles, he was acting truthfully and
properly. For “full assurance,”

however, the apostolic confirmation was necessary; and since Paul could
not impart this orally and in

person, he wrote the Epistle to the Colossians that they might be fully
persuaded with respect to the knowledge of the mystery of God and that
they might not be seduced according to the tradition of men

under the pretext of humility and by a show of wisdom. These are his own
words. But he does not just

write these words: “It is true what Epaphras taught among you,” but he
enumerates the chief points of

the apostolic doctrine that from them they might know and understand “the
full assurance” of the things

which they heard from Epaphras, because they were the same. How could
there have been “full assurance” if Epaphras had taught other things than
Paul was at that time writing to the Colossians?

Whatever therefore is put forth as apostolic doctrine or tradition, that must

indeed be confirmed by

apostolic authority and approval; and where the living voice of the apostles
could not be had, confirmation through writings was necessary, as Paul
testifies both elsewhere and in this epistle. In ch.

3:16 he says: “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly,” which apparently
must be understood concerning the doctrine of Christ as we have it written
by the evangelists. In ch. 4:10 he mentions Mark,
from whom they had “received commands.” This I understand as referring
to the letter of the apostles

(Acts 15:22 ff.), since Paul and Barnabas were separated (Acts 15:36–40)
and Paul with his companions

delivered the resolutions adopted by the apostles to the churches (Acts

16:4), concerning which it is certain that they were committed to writing
(Acts 15:23–29). So there is no doubt that also Barnabas together with
Mark, whom he had taken to himself (Acts 15:39) did the same. And what
are called

“decisions” in Acts 16:4 appear to be called “commands” here. Thus Paul

refers the Colossians to the

writings of the New Testament which were in existence at that time. But
Paul wrote this epistle not for

the use of the Colossians only, but he wants it read also in the church of the
Laodiceans, who like the

Colossians had “not seen his face in the flesh.” For all of us, therefore, who
have not heard the living

voice of Paul and have not seen his face in the flesh, his epistles have been
published that we may derive from them “full assurance” for our faith. This
is Paul’s own intention and the chief point of the

controversy between us and the adherents of the pope.

43 Let us add here also an observation from the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Regarding the author we shall not now dispute. He correctly defines the
doctrine of the Gospel, which was in the beginning proclaimed by the Lord
and was afterward preached and confirmed by the apostles. He says in ch.
2:1:

“Lest we drift away from it.” Chrysostom rightly says: “When a speech
which has been heard is not retained or preserved, it is said to flow away.”
Why this epistle was written can therefore be determined

from this, namely, that they might not drift away from the things which they
had received through oral

tradition. And in ch. 13:22 he says that he has written briefly and in a few
words, but he nevertheless

includes two passages in which the sum of the apostolic doctrine is given.
For in chs. 5 and 6 he shows

which fundamentals of the apostolic doctrine were customarily proclaimed

in the churches at the time of

the apostles. And certainly only the bare essentials of the apostolic
instruction are enumerated there; but adequate explanations are found in the
other writings of the apostles.

However, the chief argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews revolves around
the question, what is to

be understood by the solid food of adults which it was the custom to set
before the Christians after they

had learned the first rudiments of the faith. Paul also confirms this in 1 Cor.
3 and 14. These two chapters without doubt contain a summary of the
whole apostolic doctrine. Therefore Heb. 13:9

concludes: “Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings.” Thus
Nicephorus also says that the

argument of the apostolic epistles consists in two things: (1) they recall to
the memory of the churches

by means of writings what had been delivered orally; (2) what was to be
built on the foundation they add through the epistles. And since we have in
the Scripture of the New Testament these two things, in
which the sum of the whole apostolic doctrine consists, namely, the
foundation and that which is to be

built on the foundation, what more do we desire?

44 Of the epistles of Paul there remains the Second Epistle to Timothy,

which he wrote at the time

when death was about to overtake him. And since Paul wanted to leave
behind this writing, made shortly before his death, as it were in lieu of a last
will to the church, it will provide us with a very clear testimony concerning
the whole Scripture of the New Testament. In ch. 1:13 he says: “Follow the
pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me.” But lest this
“pattern” should be doubtful

or unknown, he at once adds that it consists in these two chief points,

namely, in faith and love, which

are grounded in Jesus Christ. And this he at once calls “the truth that has
been entrusted to you” and commands him to guard it. In ch. 2:2 he says:
“What you have heard from me before many witnesses

entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” And in ch.
3:14: “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly
believed, knowing from whom you learned it.”

45 There is no doubt that these statements speak about the doctrine which
Paul had delivered personally and orally to Timothy. But how shall we, who
did not hear the living voice either of Paul or

of Timothy, know for sure what those traditions commended by Paul to

Timothy were? Did he for posterity want to make “the full assurance” of
our faith depend on the accounts and assertions of men

who (as Augustine says) have neither prophetic nor apostolic authority?
Surely it has already been shown a number of times that Paul committed his
doctrine to writing for this very reason. In the same
manner also he passes over from the oral tradition to the Scripture in 2 Tim.
3:14–17.

46 We have thus far taken note of the testimonies concerning individual

epistles and writings of the New Testament from the very words of
Scripture. In this passage, however, toward the end of his life,

Paul wanted to present a very clear and beautiful testimony concerning the
whole Scripture in general,

both of the Old and of the New Testament. And as he says, Col. 2:1–5, that
he was concerned, while he

lived, about “the full assurance” of the faith of those who had not seen his
face in the flesh, so now, when he was about to die, he shows the same
concern for the church for all future generations, which

would not see his face nor hear his voice in this life. It is, however, without
doubt the sum and substance of his doctrine which Paul, when present,
delivered orally, that men may be instructed for salvation through faith in
Christ Jesus.

47 The same, however, Paul affirms concerning the Holy Scriptures, for he
says: “The Holy Scriptures are able to instruct you for salvation through
faith in Christ Jesus.” John says the same thing concerning the writings of
the evangelists: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”
Paul affirms the same of the

whole Scripture: “The Holy Scriptures are able to instruct you for salvation
through faith in Christ Jesus.” The judgment is so similar and stated in the
very same words, first by Paul and later by John, in

order that the similarity may show the same author, namely, the Holy Spirit,
and particularly that it may

confirm the constant certainty and steadfastness of this judgment

concerning the Holy Scriptures. And
lest this judgment concerning Scripture be thought to have slipped out by
chance in one place, the Holy

Spirit wanted to repeat it at another place and time in the same words. Such
repetitions in the Scripture

signify certainty and that a matter which God wanted by repetition in the
same words diligently to command to men is of great importance.

This text of Paul, 2 Tim. 3:14–17, if it is diligently weighed, will show that
Paul is speaking not only

of the sacred writings of the Old Testament but of the whole Scripture of the
Old and of the New Testament. For he says that Timothy has known the
Holy Scriptures from infancy. But at the time when

Timothy was still a child, the Scriptures of the New Testament were not yet
in existence. He is therefore

speaking of the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament, which, as he says,

Timothy has known from the

first years of childhood. Immediately, however, he adds the other statement:

“All Scripture is given by

inspiration of God, etc.” Here I ask whether this statement is to be

understood only of the Scripture of
the Old Testament. For if anyone should dare to argue that the Scriptures of
the New Testament which

were already in existence at that time are not included in the statement of
Paul, but are to be excluded, it will follow that they are not divinely
inspired, nor profitable for doctrine, which, I believe, no one will say.

48 It is therefore certain and clear that Paul, after he had spoken of the
sacred writings of the Old Testament, immediately added a general
statement concerning the whole divinely inspired Scripture; and no one will
be able to deny without blasphemy that in this Scripture also the New
Testament writings are included. However, at the time when Paul wrote
this, almost all the canonical Scriptures of

the New Testament were already in existence, except the writings of John.
Paul therefore includes also

those which were in existence at that time, and says in general: “All
Scripture is inspired by God” etc.

This, therefore, is the true canonization of the writings of the New

Testament. And because there was at

that time no doubt among the faithful concerning the authority, certainty,
truth, perfection, and sufficiency of the Scripture of the Old Testament,
Paul, in the second statement, seems to be speaking

principally of the writings of the New Testament, concerning which, when

he was about to die, he wanted to leave his judgment to all posterity of the
church.

49 But what, you ask, will you prove by this statement? That the Scripture
of the New Testament is

also profitable no one denies. But to argue from profitableness for

sufficiency is not a valid conclusion.
The Book of Ruth is profitable for doctrine. But what sane person would
conclude from this that all that

is necessary for doctrine and morals is contained in the Book of Ruth, so

that nothing could be found

which could not be expressly proved from it?

I reply: I confess that if the statement of Paul would say only that the
Scripture is profitable for teaching, etc., the sufficiency of the Scripture
could not be concluded with enough certainty. But Paul

declares that all the divinely inspired Scripture, in which, as we have

shown, also the books of the New

Testament are included, is thus “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be
complete, equipped for every good work.” He says “man of

God,” which could be understood of any Christian who has given himself to
God. But in 1 Tim. 6:11

“man of God” is another name for a minister of the Gospel, as the prophets
were called men of God.

And in the whole Second Epistle to Timothy Paul treats of the ministry of
teaching and transmitting the

Gospel. Therefore he declares that the Scripture is profitable that a man of

God, that is, a minister of the Gospel, may be

, which means sound, entire, a finished product in every limb and member.
But the

word is also used concerning sufficiency, as when the Greeks say

, “sufficient to do

this.”
Concerning what kind of sufficiency and completeness Paul wants to have
this understood he

explains himself when he says about the man of God, that is, the minister of
the Gospel, that he may be

(“equipped”) for every good work which is necessary for the ministry. For
also in Titus

3:13–14, where he had spoken of Zenas, the lawyer, and of Apollos, he

adds: “Let our people learn to

apply themselves to good deeds,” which he understands here chiefly of the

ministry. However, if this is

understood in general of every Christian and of every good work, nothing

will be taken away from the

statement of Paul. But both the words and the circumstances show that Paul
is speaking chiefly of the

ministry. Now,

means one who is prepared, instructed, and, as it were, made completely

ready. Thus in Acts 21:5 the completed and accomplished days are
described with this word.

Oecumenius uses “fulfilled” as a synonym. Luke 6:40, where Christ says:

“A disciple is not above his

teacher, but everyone when he is fully taught, will be like his teacher,” uses
the word

From this comparison the reader may understand what it is that Paul in this
passage calls
.

50 From this explanation of the words it is clear that this is Paul’s meaning:
When a man of God, that

is, a minister of the Gospel, uses the divinely inspired Scripture for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction, then he is “exactly
fitted” (

) for the ministry, that is sound, whole, sufficient,

and equipped for every good work which is required for the ministry,
instructed … sufficiently, completely ready. That this is the emphasis of the
words is certain.

51 The question now is, whether a man of God, that is a minister of the
Gospel, when he possesses

and rightly uses the divinely inspired Scriptures, needs anything more
outside of the Scripture to discharge the duties of the ministry, or whether
the divinely inspired Scripture sufficiently contains everything that belongs
to and is required for the ministry of the Gospel? The papalists uphold the
former opinion; we hold the latter concerning the perfection and sufficiency
of the Scriptures, because,

when it is asked with pious zeal to which of these meanings Paul agrees and
adds his vote, the matter is

clear beyond all argument, for he says that the Scripture is profitable for
this, that a man of God may be

“complete,” “equipped” for every good work. But if beside Scripture also
other and different unwritten
traditions must be accepted with equal reverence and devotion, then Paul
would certainly not have been

correct in saying that the Scripture is profitable for this, that a man of God
may be “complete,”

“equipped” for every good work. These things belong together, the teaching
of the ministry and the faith

of the church. Therefore whatever is proved of the one is understood to be

proved also of the other.

52 But you say: “Yet Paul does not commend to Timothy only the Scripture
but also the traditions which he had delivered to him by word of mouth.”
“What you have heard from me,” he says, “what you

have learned, what has been entrusted to you, etc.” This is true. But see how
simple and plain the solution is! Of his traditions Paul says: “Command and
teach these things, for by so doing you will save

both yourself and your hearers.” In that doctrine, therefore, which Paul
transmitted by word of mouth all

things were without any doubt contained which are necessary for dogmas
and morals. And of these traditions of Paul it could rightly be said that they
are profitable for teaching, that a man of God may be

“complete,” “equipped” for every good work. In Acts 20:27 he says: “I did
not shrink from declaring to

you the whole counsel of God.” But because Paul says the same thing
concerning the Scriptures, as was

shown, it is altogether necessary that the same doctrine which Paul

transmitted orally should be contained in the Scripture. For he does not say:
“He who has the Scripture has a certain part of the apostolic doctrine,” and,
“when he adds to the Scripture the unwritten traditions, then finally a man
of
God is complete.” This he does not say, but his words are quite clear: “The
Scripture is profitable that a man of God may be ‘complete.’” Both things
are therefore true: A man of God who holds Paul’s traditions is “complete”
in his ministry, etc.; and he who holds the divinely inspired Scripture is

“complete” in his ministry, because it is the same doctrine which at first

was transmitted by word of mouth and later comprehended in writings.

53 The objection that Paul says in 2 Thess. 2:15: “Hold to the traditions
which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter,” has no
place here, for Paul said this at the time when the books of the New
Testament were first beginning to be written and not yet all of them had
been published. But

toward the end of his life, when the books of the New Testament had been
written and published, he speaks of the Scripture in such a way that he
makes the tradition and the Scripture equal, so that whoever has the one has
also the other; and this he does because the same thing was written which
had

been transmitted orally. And those same chief points which Paul enumerates
in 2 Tim. 3:16 show the perfection and the sufficiency of the Scripture; for
he states four points:

1. “Teaching,” which embraces those things which pertain to the

presentation and the affirmation of

the doctrines.

2. “Reproof.” The word

is used of the refutation of heretics in Titus 1:13. Reproof therefore

includes the judgment and refutation of false doctrines.

3. He uses the word “training” and adds “in righteousness” inasmuch as he

is righteous who does righteousness. Therefore this includes instruction for
a pious life and morals.
4. “Correction,” by which the things are pointed out, corrected, and
amended which in life and morals do not agree with the norm of the divine
will.

When we have these things in the ministry both for teaching and for morals,
we certainly should not

and cannot require anything besides. Paul therefore rightly declares that the
Scriptures are profitable that the man of God may be “complete.”

We have, therefore, the clearest testimonies from Paul concerning each of

his epistles, for what reasons, with what purpose, to what end and use he
wrote them and commended them to the churches.

We shall briefly add certain testimonies also from the other writings of the
apostles.

54 Peter says in 1 Peter 1:10–12 that the Gospel is what the prophets
foretold and the apostles proclaimed. He says: “That word is the good news
which was preached to you.” But this, they say, the

apostles did orally. This no one denies. But we now ask: “Seeing that the
apostles at first delivered their doctrine orally and afterwards committed it
to writting, for what purpose, for what reasons, and for what

use did they do this?” Peter himself explains this at the end of his First
Epistle: “By Sylvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written
briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God; in
which you also stand.”

We said before that it belonged to the office of the apostles to approve and
confirm with their testimony the doctrine which had been delivered to the
church if it was true and sound. This Peter had

previously done by word of mouth in Samaria, according to Acts 8:14–25.

But because he cannot be present now by word of mouth and do this
everywhere in the dispersion, he sends Sylvanus. But does he
send Sylvanus with the instruction only to lay before them under the title of
traditions things which he

would say he had received in commandments from Peter? Sylvanus was

certainly in great authority at

that time as one who several times had together with Paul signed the latter’s
epistles. However, in the

approval and confirmation of dogmas, where apostolic authority is required,

Peter, when he could not be

present in person, delivered in writing to Sylvanus the things which he

wanted laid before the churches

in his name, both in order that Sylvanus might be able to prove, and also
that the churches might be certain what were the true, certain, and
“genuine” commands of Peter. We see therefore also from Peter’s statement
and advice what we have shown repeatedly from the epistles of Paul,
namely, that when someone who is not an apostle sets before us something
as handed down by and received from the

apostles and we cannot have the living voice of the apostles, we should
demand proof from some apostolic writing. For if the mere pretext and title
that something is a tradition could satisfy the churches, it certainly would
not have been necessary that Peter should deliver his message in writing to

Sylvanus, who was at that time a man of such great authority, in order that it
might be fully shown to the churches from the writing. But at the present
time (lest I say something harsher) those are by no means

Sylvanuses, who, without Scripture, thrust on us the pretext of traditions.

55 Peter sets forth his purpose and reason for writing in these words: “I
have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true
grace of God; in which you stand.”
56 Lindanus imagines that Peter in this epistle only wanted to confirm the
traditions which they had received without writing, but that he by no means
wanted to show and expound in this epistle what these traditions were. But
if this only had been the intention of Peter, he could have completed his
epistle in these few words: “I testify that the things which you have
received by tradition are true.” Why, then, does he rehearse and explain the
chief points of the apostolic doctrine in so many words? He himself tells us
that he had briefly written those things in order that he might testify that
this is the true grace of God, in which they had been established. He does
not say (according to the comment of Tertullian) “that” but “this,” referring
to what he had written. Therefore he repeats in this epistle those things
which had been preached in those churches, in order that, after his death, as
he says in the Second Epistle, there might be a testimony showing what
Peter had judged to be the true grace of God. In the

Second Epistle he sets forth in more words and more clearly the reason for
writing. For when he has
enumerated the chief points of the doctrine in summaries, he says: “Though
you may know these things

and are established in the truth which you have, I shall not neglect to arouse
you by way of reminder”

(namely, through writings). And he adds this reason: “That after my

departure you may be able at any

time to recall these things.” For “there will be false teachers among you,
who will exploit you with false words.” Likewise: “Scoffers will come in
the last days, etc.”

57 Let the emphasis of the words be weighed!

is the word for commentaries, or books,

which are filled with brief notes from reading or hearing, for the aid of the
memory. And from this we

understand what Peter means when he uses the verb

(“remind”) and the noun

(“reminder”). Also the adverb

should be considered, for it means “always,” “everywhere,” “in

each instance.” The meaning is to be derived from the phrase

, which means to

say either “that you may be able to make recollection” or “that you may
have something with which you

may make recollection of the apostolic doctrine” always, everywhere, and

in each instance, even when
you can no longer have the living voice of the apostles after their decease. It
is altogether more to

“make recollection” than merely to “remind,” for it means to preserve the

memory of a thing. The words

and

which the Septuagint has translated now

, now

, now

mean both the recollection of something and the sign of remembrance by

which that recollection is renewed and preserved. Therefore Peter gives two
reasons for his writing in very clear words:

1. That, when they should be without the living voice of the apostles, they
might nevertheless be able

at all times and in all places and in each instance to have and preserve the
memory of the pure doctrine

handed down by the apostles.

2. He says that he writes because there will be false teachers in the church.
He calls their corruptions

“false words,” namely, words which they will pretend were handed down
by and received from the apostles, as Paul says, 2 Thess. 2:2. He speaks not
only of the dangers of the then present time, but in

ch. 2 he says: “there will be” and in ch. 3: “They will come in the last
days.” Therefore it is clear what use he wanted to have made of his writings
in the church.
Peter did not judge that the memory of the doctrine can be preserved
through traditions. Therefore he

wrote, yes, he predicts, that corruptions will arise from spurious traditions.
And in opposition to these

he places his writings and reviews the contents of Scripture:

1. The prophetic teaching, which is written down in the Old Testament.

2. The things which the apostles both said and heard concerning the advent,
majesty, and power of

Christ. We have shown above that these are set forth in the writings of the
evangelists.

3. The command which the apostles handed down; that this was in written
form we shall soon hear

from John. And Peter himself testifies that he wrote in order that the
memory of what the apostles had

taught might remain and be preserved after his death.

Nor does he speak only of his own writings, but in the end he concludes:
“So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom
given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters, etc.” Therefore Peter
has seen the epistles of Paul and commends them by his testimony to the

churches in such a way that he indicates that they concern not only those
particular churches to which

they were addressed but that they contain the universal doctrine which
belongs to all “who have obtained a faith of equal standing” with the
apostles. To these Peter writes and says: “Paul wrote to you.” In what
manner, however, and concerning what things Peter judges Paul to have
written is gathered from this, that Peter says, not of one article only but of
the whole doctrine of which he made
mention in that epistle: “So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you.” It
is high praise of the epistles of Paul that Peter says concerning them
“speaking of this,” that is, that Paul in all his letters speaks, as though with
living voice, concerning the dogmas.

58 If we therefore look for the living voice of Paul delivering the apostolic
doctrine, Peter shows that it sounds forth and is heard in his epistles. But
they say: “Peter nevertheless affirms that the epistles of

Paul are hard to understand and that many twist them to their own
destruction. Therefore it is dangerous

to use the Scriptures, and it is safer to be satisfied with the traditions.” I

reply: Peter does not say that Paul’s epistles are written in such a way that
by their difficulty and obscurity they present to their readers an occasion for
destruction, for he uses not the feminine but the neuter article, signifying
that

the things themselves of which Paul speaks, because they are far above and
beyond every conception of

reason, cannot be rightly understood by carnal men but that there is need for
enlightenment from the Holy Spirit. Neither does he say that all the dogmas
in Paul’s epistles are “hard to understand,” but some. And he does not say
that they in themselves furnish the readers with an occasion for destruction,

but he says that unlearned and unstable men twist them to their own
destruction. He uses the very emphatic word

(“they twist”), which is taken from the tortures. For as torture is often

applied to innocent persons when they are being questioned in order that
something other than the truth

may be squeezed out of them according to the wish of the torturers, so, says
Peter, tortures are, as it were, applied to the Scripture, by which it is twisted
from its genuine, simple, and clear meaning in order that it may say to us
what we imagined it had to mean before we even read it, as Hilary says.

Of itself, therefore, unless it is twisted, it does not give any but the one,
simple, true, and salutary meaning. And this fate, Peter says, the epistles of
Paul have in common with the rest of Scripture, for he says: “as they do the
other Scriptures.” But does Peter for this reason warn against the reading of
the

Scripture? By no means! Rather he gives the reason and purpose of this

reminder when he says: “You

therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried

away with the error of lawless

men and lose your own stability, etc.” We have therefore Peter’s judgment
concerning his own, concerning Paul’s, and concerning the rest of the
Scripture, from what considerations, for what reasons,

and to what end they were transmitted and commended to the church.

59 Let us also hear what John in his epistle judges concerning the writings
of the apostles and how he commends them to the church. First he gives a
description of the apostolic proclamation: “That which

was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen, of the
Word of life, we proclaim to

you.” But soon he adds: “And we are writing this that our joy may be
complete. This is the message which we have heard from Him and proclaim
to you, etc.” You see what John affirms concerning the

apostolic writings. For he says: “We are writing this, and this is the message
we have heard from Christ

and proclaim to you.” In ch. 2:24, he says: “Let what you heard from the
beginning abide in you.”
Likewise: “As his anointing teaches you, abide in Him.” There is no doubt
that these statements speak

of the things which the apostles had transmitted by word of mouth. But hear
what John says: “Beloved,

I am writing you no new commandment but an old commandment which

you had from the beginning;

the old commandment is the word you have heard.”

Now let us see what this adds up to. John says, “If what you have heard
from the beginning abides in

you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is what He
has promised us, eternal life.”

But the same John affirms that that Word which they heard from the
beginning has been written.

Therefore whoever remains in the things which have been written truly
remains in the things which were transmitted by the apostles to the church
from the beginning. But why does John write what they

had previously heard and learned? He says: “I write this to you about those
who would deceive you.”

“You,” he says, “have the anointing of the Holy One, and you know all
things.” But lest anything be foisted upon the church under the pretext of
this anointing, he at once adds: “I write to you, not because you do not
know the truth, but because you know it.” What, therefore, they had learned
from the anointing of the Spirit, that John is writing; but for whom, in what
manner, and to what end he writes

and what use he wants to have made of the Scripture in the church, he
expressly indicates: “I am writing

to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven. I am writing to you,
fathers, because you know
Him who is from the beginning. I am writing to you, young men, because
you have overcome the evil

one. I write to you, children, because you know the Father. I write to you,
young men, because you are

strong, and the Word of God abides in you.”

It is certainly clear as clear can be that the Scripture has been given for all
ages, and for this use, that they should be certain that their sins are forgiven,
that they know the Father who is from the beginning,

that they overcome the wicked one, and that the Word of God remains in
them. Ch. 4:1 says: “Do not

believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for
many false prophets have gone out into the world.” But how the spirits are
to be tested and the false prophets to be distinguished, that is certainly what
John deals with in this his writing. Later he refers back to what he wrote
earlier, when he says: “This is the commandment; this is the testimony.”
Therefore John testifies several times

in this epistle that the commandment of the apostles which Peter wants the
churches to remember has

been comprehended in writing.

When he is about to conclude the epistle in ch. 5, he says “I write this to

you who believe in the name

of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life and that
you may believe in the name

of the Son of God.” This sentence has been both mutilated and changed in
the old version. 17 But John shows that he wrote both for the benefit of
those who already believed, in order that, confirmed in the

faith, they might know that they possessed eternal life, and for the benefit of
those who were yet to come to faith, that they might believe in the name of
the Son of God. I shall quote only these bare statements, for in a matter that
is clear in itself there is no need for many words.

60 In the Apocalypse of John this must be observed first of all, that John at
various times received the command from the Son of God to write to the
churches the things which he both saw and heard. And

yet so great is the impudence of Eck, of Pighius, and of my Andrada that

they are not afraid to say that

the apostles received the command from the Son of God not that they
should write but that they should

only preach the Gospel. And yet John at various times receives an express
command from the Son of

God Himself to write to the churches. And concerning the remaining

writings of the New Testament Paul affirms that they are divinely inspired,
that is (as Peter interprets it), the men of God spoke not by human will but
impelled by the Spirit of God.

Also this needs to be observed by us in the Apocalypse, that John was not
allowed to write everything, but those things which were necessary and
could be grasped. For in ch. 10:4 he says: “When

the seven thunders had sounded, I was about to write, but I heard a voice
from heaven saying: ‘Seal up

what the seven thunders have said, and do not write it down.’” At the end
he threatens with plagues anyone who would either add to or take away
from the words of this book. Therefore what is said of the

Scripture of the Old Testament pertains also and is rightly applied to the
writings of the New Testament.

You shall add nothing and take away nothing. Do not turn from it either to
the right or to the left. Let
not everyone do what seems right to him, but that which I command you,
that only do. You shall neither

add nor take away anything.

61 Jude says concerning his epistle that although he had been very eager to
write to them of our common salvation, he found it necessary to write
because false teachers had come in. And the argument

of the epistle is that they should strive to guard the doctrine which was once
delivered to the saints.

Here Lindanus exclaims that Jude manifestly speaks concerning the

doctrine of the apostles which they

had delivered orally. Why should he not speak of this, since there is no
other apostolic doctrine than that which was delivered by them? But we
have already shown that the things which the apostles preached

and handed down were … set down in written documents by them. And in
order to show that he is referring to the writings of the apostles, Jude
describes almost word for word what is contained in the

Second Epistle of Peter. And afterwards he says: “You must remember the
predictions of the apostles of

our Lord Jesus Christ.” He does not, however, mean unknown or unwritten
traditions, but at once he quotes the very words of Peter which are found in
ch. 3 of the Second Epistle. Since therefore Jude, when he speaks of the
faith once delivered, manifestly refers to the writings of the apostles, he
would

without doubt have added other things if he had believed that anything
necessary for the preservation of

the pure doctrine was lacking and desirable in the apostolic writings.

62 What is said in the Second and the Third Epistle which bear the name of
John, namely: “Though I
have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper, ink, and pen, but I
hope to come to see you and

talk with you face to face”; this Lindanus twists to mean that the apostles
had not wanted to commit some of the foremost points of the faith and the
loftier dogmas of Christianity to paper and ink, where

they would be lost, but had entrusted them to the traditions in order that
they might be perpetuated. But

it is an impudent invention, a manifest lie, that the text either says or means
this. The genuine apostle

John speaks in an altogether different manner in the First Epistle, which is

clearly “authentic,” namely,

that he is writing that old commandment which they had received from the
beginning. But concerning

the author of the two later epistles there has always been doubt among the
ancients. Therefore let that

stand which Jerome says concerning the Apocrypha from the judgment of
antiquity, that for the confirmation of the things which come into
controversy, testimonies neither can nor should be taken from them. And
since the author of these epistles did not want to write many of the things he
mentions,

we answer with the words of Augustine: “Who, therefore will say that it is
this or that; or, if he dares to say it, how will he prove it?”

63 Thus far we have shown concerning the individual writings of the New
Testament for what purpose, for what reasons, and for what use the apostles
committed their doctrine to writing … and I undertook to treat this for the
following reason. The whole dispute concerning the authority, perfection,

and sufficiency of Scripture can be judged best of all on this basis. I had
decided in the beginning to finish this task with a few words and with a few
quotations. But in the treatment of the matter I afterwards noticed that the
individual epistles of the apostles contain some clear testimonies
concerning

this matter, each of which has something specific to tell us; taken all
together, they present such firm and solid proofs concerning the authority,
perfection, and sufficiency of the Scripture that one cannot escape them or
overthrow them by the empty objections and fallacies of the papalists. This
investigation

has indeed instructed, delighted, and above all confirmed me, and I hope
that by the grace of God some

fruit will accrue from it to the reader.

64 The sum of the things we have demonstrated is this: The apostles

committed their doctrine to writing from these considerations, for these
reasons, and for this use: (1) that they might repeat in writing what they had
personally delivered orally, and recall it to the memory; (2) that they might
explain by means of epistles those things which were to be built on the first
elements of faith which they had transmitted; (3) that the churches were
being disturbed and the doctrine adulterated under the pretext and title of
traditions supposedly received from the apostles; (4) that the doctrine
received from the apostles by word of mouth was not being faithfully
preserved by tradition; (5) that other teachers who were not apostles might
have the written testimony from which they could prove to the churches

that the doctrine which they brought was apostolic; (6) that the churches
which could not hear the living

voice of the apostles might be certain which doctrine they were to receive
and venerate as truly apostolic; (7) that the apostles afterward laid down in
writings the same things which they had delivered

orally while they were present; (8) that in the writings of the apostles there
is presented not merely a bare catalog of the chief points of apostolic
doctrine but also adequate explanations; (9) that the rule of the Christian
faith should be in the Scripture; (10) that it might be possible to know from
the writings of the apostles what knowledge they had concerning the
mystery of Christ; (11) that the apostles wrote in

this way that the believers might be able, in the infirmity of this life, to
grasp the mysteries of the Gospel; (12) that they afterwards committed to
writing the same things which they had previously transmitted, in order that
it might be possible to preserve the purity of the doctrine against
corruptions; (13) that the apostles comprehended in their writings both the
first elements of faith and the fuller and

more complete teaching which followed later; (14) that all Scripture given
by inspiration of God is profitable that the minister of the Gospel may be
complete, equipped for every good work of the

ministry; (15) that the apostles wrote to this end, that the church, after it
was deprived of the voice of the apostles through their death, might have a
means whereby it could retain and preserve the memory

of the apostolic doctrine, especially because in the last times many errors
would be foisted upon the church by means of lying words which would
parade under the name of apostolic traditions; (16) that

there might be a model, showing how a minister must conduct himself in

the church, in order that the

church may be and remain a pillar and bulwark of the truth. (17) that the
apostles afterward wrote the

same things which they delivered from the beginning, and this for confident
use by people of every age,

in every church, and for all time to come; (18) that they wrote both for
those who believed already and

for such as were yet to come to faith; (19) that they received the command
to write from the Son of God
Himself; (20) that the origin, cause, and use of the Scripture in the New
Testament is the same as in the

Old Testament, so that nothing may be added, nothing taken away, and
nothing be departed from either

to the right or to the left. Whatever else belongs here has been explained in
the investigation itself.

These things clearly and solidly prove and confirm the authority, perfection,
and sufficiency of the Holy Scripture in the New Testament against all
arguments, and against all fallacies of the papalists.

What is being objected in the matter of the traditions will be explained

below in the proper place.

10 The chronology of the Septuagint frequently departs from that of the

Masoretic text, allowing for a larger rather than for a smaller number of
years.

11 The reference is to Contra haereses.

12 Chemnitz is here following the lead of Tertullian and Epiphanius, who

assumed that the name

“Ebionites” was derived from a heresiarch named Ebion. There is no

historical evidence that such a heresiarch ever existed.

13 The text of the Examen is here defective in all editions. The edition of
1566 has: quae literis comprehensae non sunt suffice re non poterat. The
edition of 1578 has: quae literis comprehensae sunt sufficere non poterant.
This is repeated in the edition of 1599 and in the Preuss edition.

According to a microfilm copy of Andrada’s book, Orthodoxum

explicationum, Book II, from which

the quotation is taken, Andrada wrote: ut sanctissimi illi viri ea literis

consignment, quae ad constituendam fidem aliarum rerum omnium, quae
literis comprehensae non sunt, satis sufficere poterant.
It is this text which our translation follows.

14 The argument is about the meaning of the Greek word

. The primary meaning is “beside.” It

also occurs in the sense of “contrary to.”

15 In bringing together Gal. 6:16, with its verb in the future tense, and Ps.
102:18 (in the Vulgate, Ps.

101:19), Chemnitz is in general following the text of the Vulgate, though

not verbatim. The latter passage in the Vulgate reads: Scribantur haec in
generalione altera, et populus, qui creabitur, laudabit Dominion. Chemnitz
has: ut apud populum qui creabitur, ejus usus sit.

16 Cf. p. 58.

17 Chemnitz’ criticism of the Vulgate is not well taken here. The reformers
and their immediate successors had available to them chiefly the Byzantine
manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, which

scholars have found to be frequently inaccurate. A comparison of the

Vulgate with the R. S. V. here and

elsewhere indicates that at times the Vulgate followed a better text than was
available to Chemnitz and

others of his time.

SECTION V

Testimonies of the Ancient Church Concerning the Scriptures

1 What we have thus far adduced from the very words of Scripture are the
firmest of firm testimonies on which a pious heart can safely rest. For they
set before us the judgment of the Holy Spirit Himself
concerning the Scripture. For as the ancients say that concerning God
nothing should be believed except

on the basis of His own revelation and testimony, so also we should believe
about the Scripture what the

Scripture says about itself, or rather, what its author, the Holy Spirit
Himself, concludes and declares about His work. But we shall also add the
consensus of the ancient church concerning the authority, perfection, and
sufficiency of the Scripture. For we love and venerate the testimonies of the
ancient and

purer church, by whose agreement we are both aided and confirmed; but
our faith must rest on the word

of God, not on human authority. Therefore we do not set the testimonies of

the fathers over the Scripture, but subordinate them to it.

First I repeat the statement of Irenaeus, Bk. 3, ch. 1: “The apostles at that
time first preached the Gospel but later, by the will of God, they delivered it
to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our
faith.”

Augustine, De civitate Dei, Bk. 19, ch. 18, says: “The City of God believes
the sacred Scriptures, both old and new, which we call canonical. From
these the faith is conceived by which the righteous man lives, through
which we walk without doubting as long as we sojourn away from the
Lord.”

Chrysostom, in Homily 1 on Matthew, writes: “We ought not to have

needed the aid of writings but

should have shown a life so pure in everything that we might have used the
grace of the Holy Spirit in

the place of books. But because we have driven off this grace, let us at least
apply our mind to the other mode of navigation. God spoke to the patriarchs
not through writings but in person, because He had found their hearts pure.
But after the whole people of the Jews had fallen into the depths of
corruption,

writings and tables and the admonition which is mediated through them
were given as a matter of necessity. And we perceive that this happened not
only to the saints of the Old Testament but also of the

New Testament. For Christ indeed also transmitted no writing to the

apostles but instead of writings promised that He would give them the grace
of the Holy Spirit. And that this is much better than the other, Jeremiah
testifies in ch. 31:33 and Paul in 2 Cor. 3:3. But because in the course of
time they grievously offended, some on account of the dogmas, others
through depravity of morals, the written admonition was again necessary.”

And he adds: “Consider what extraordinary foolishness it is, if, after losing
our first dignity, we are

not even willing to use the second remedy for our salvation but despise the
heavenly writings, as though

they had been set before us to no purpose and in vain.” That first dignity
then, when the apostolic doctrine was proclaimed without writing, only by
the living voice, has been lost according to Chrysostom’s statement, and he
shows for what reason and for what use God gave us the Scripture, not

only in the Old Testament but also in the New Testament. For he knows
nothing of the difference concerning which the papalists babble.

Theophylact gives the opinion of Chrysostom thus: “Because heresies were

bound to spring up which

would destroy our morals, it appeared to be worth the effort to write the
Gospels, that, by learning the

truth from them, we might not be deceived through the lies of the heresies.”

Augustine, De doctrina Christiana, Bk. 2, ch. 9, says: “Among the things

which are clearly stated in
Holy Scripture are found all things which comprise faith and morals for
living, namely, hope and love.”

It is therefore the opinion of Augustine that everything is found in the

Scripture which belongs to faith

and morals for living and that it is found in those passages which are clearly
stated in the Scripture.

What is therefore to be thought, I ask, concerning that which the papalists

try to foist on us beside and
outside of the Scripture?

Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, Bk. 3, ch. 6, writes: “If anyone

preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning
any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not

say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you
anything besides what you

have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospel, let him be
anathema.”

Let Lindanus, who contends that he is not anathema who preaches anything
beside what has been written, since more has been given by tradition than
has been written, prick up his ears at this passage.

Augustine also says In Epistolam Johannis tractatus, 2: “You ought to

notice particularly and store in your memory that God wanted to lay a firm
foundation in the Scriptures against treacherous errors, a foundation against
which no one dares to speak who would in any way be considered a
Christian. For

when He offered Himself to them to touch, this did not suffice Him unless
He also confirmed the heart

of the believers from the Scriptures, for He foresaw that the time would
come when we would not have

anything to touch but would have something to read.”

In De bono viduitatis, ch. 2, he says: “What more shall I teach you than
what we read in the apostle?

For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser
than we ought. Therefore I

should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of
the Teacher.”
Athanasius, in Contra gentes, writes: “The holy and divinely inspired
Scriptures suffice for all instruction in the truth.”

Chrysostom, commenting on 2 Thess. 2, writes: “All things are clear and

plain from the divine Scriptures; whatever things are necessary are
manifest.”

Jerome, commenting on Galatians, says: “It is the doctrine of the Holy

Spirit which is set forth in the

canonical writings, and if the councils declare anything against it, I hold it
to be wicked.”

Basil, in a discourse on the confession of faith, writes: “If the Lord is

faithful in all that He says, and if all His commandments are faithful, it is a
manifest falling from faith and a crime of pride either to

reject something of what is written or to add something from the unwritten,

since Christ said: My sheep

hear My voice; they will not follow a stranger but will flee, because they do
not know his voice.’”

The same Basil, in Moralia, summa 72, ch. 1, declares: “The hearers taught
in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which
agrees with the Scriptures but reject that which is foreign.” And to this rule
he applies the statement of Paul, Gal. 1:8: “If an angel from heaven should

preach to you a Gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him
be cursed.” In the same treatise, summa 80, ch. 22 he says: “What is proper
for a believer? Not to dare to add anything, for if

everything which is not of faith is sin, and faith comes from hearing, and
hearing through the Word of

God, then everything which is outside of the divinely inspired Scripture is

sin, because it is not of faith.”
The same Basil says in Letter No. 80: “We do not think that it is right to
make what is custom among

them into a law and rule of the right doctrine. Therefore let the divinely
inspired Scripture be made the

judge by us, and on the side of those whose doctrines are found in
agreement with the divine words the

vote of truth is cast.”

Origen, commenting on Rom. 3, writes: “Paul presents an example to the

teachers of the church that

they should set forth what they speak to the people not as suppositions
based on their own opinions but

as fortified with the divine testimonies. For if so great and gifted an apostle
does not believe that the authority of his sayings can suffice unless he can
say that what he says is written in the Law and the Prophets, how much
more ought we who are the least of all observe this, that we do not set forth
our

own opinions when we teach, but those of the Holy Spirit!”

Gerson, in the first part of De examine doctrinarum, quotes a certain gloss

concerning the passage
“There appeared Moses and Elias with Him”: “Suspect is every revelation
which the Law and the Prophets together with the Gospel do not confirm.”

Epiphanius, in Heresy 65, says: “We can tell the solution of any question
not through our own reasonings but from what follows from the
Scriptures.”

Worthy of everlasting remembrance is the statement of Constantine the

Great with which he in person

opened the Nicene Synod, as they now say. Also the occasion for this
statement must be considered.

Sozomen, Bk. 1, ch. 17, relates that there were differing opinions. Some
advised that nothing new should be brought in beside the faith delivered
from the beginning, others asserted that they should not

rashly cling to ancient opinions without investigation and examination; and

so the matter was drawn hither and yon on a variety of subjects. Then
Constantine, as Theodoret writes, Bk. 1, ch. 7, made a speech concerning
harmony, saying that it was unbecoming that after the enemies of the church
had been vanquished they should now attack one another and give their
enemies occasion for laughter, especially through disputes about divine
things, concerning which they possessed the doctrine of the Holy Spirit

, that is, in writings engraved in records, or documents, as it were, for that is

what

means. “For,” said he, “the books of the evangelists and apostles and the
oracles of the

ancient prophets plainly teach us what we are to think concerning divine

matters. Therefore let us cease

our hostile discord and take the solutions of the questions out of the
divinely inspired sayings.” This is a beautiful thought, worthy of being
recorded and noted in the speaker’s own words. He puts it this way:
So also Evagrius, writing in Bk. 2, ch. 16, about the Synod of Ephesus and
Chalcedon, quotes the statement of John of Antioch which was approved by
Cyril: “From the words of the evangelists and apostles concerning the Lord
we know that men of God have decided, etc.”

And Cusanus writes that the custom of the ancient ecumenical synods was
to place the holy Gospels

in their midst.

Augustine, in Letter No. 163, says that this was observed also in private
disputations about religion.

“Wherever,” he says, “the place has been determined, let us see to it that the
canonical codices are on

hand and if any proofs can be produced on either side, let us set everything
else aside and bring so important a matter to a conclusion.”

Chrysostom, in Homily 13 on Genesis, writes: “They say that we are to

understand the things concerning Paradise not as they are written but in a
different way. But when Scripture wants to teach us

something like that, it interprets itself and does not permit the hearer to err.
I therefore beg and entreat that we close our ears to all these things and
follow the canon of Holy Scripture exactly.”

Origen, in Homily 7 on Ezekiel, says: “Anyone who leads a very evil life
will not easily move people

to false doctrine, but men who lead exemplary lives may. Let him therefore
who is concerned about his

life not be taken in by the friendliness of heretics to agree with their

doctrine. Neither let him be offended at my faults, who am a teacher, but let
him consider the doctrine itself.” But hear how Origen

teaches that the dogma itself must be considered. He says: “Let us imitate
no one, but if we want to imitate anyone, there is set before us for imitation
Jesus Christ, the acts of the apostles are described, and we know the deeds
of the prophets from the sacred books. That example is firm, that pattern
reliable; whoever desires to follow it will walk securely.”

Cyril, De recta fide ad reginas, writes: “It is necessary for us to follow the
divine writings and not to

depart in anything from their precept.”

Augustine, Contra Maximinum, Bk. 3, ch. 14, says: “But now I ought not to
quote the Nicean, nor you the Ariminensian Council, as if to judge
beforehand. I will not be bound by the authority of this,

nor you by the authority of that. On the authority of the Scriptures and not
on any one’s own, but on the

common witnesses of both, let matter contend with matter, cause with
cause, reason with reason.”

Origen, commenting on Jeremiah, says: “It is necessary for us to appeal to

the testimony of the Holy

Scriptures, for our thoughts and expositions do not find credence without
these witnesses.”

Jerome, commenting on Titus, says: “Without the authority of the

Scriptures, talkativeness does not

find credence.”

Commenting on Matthew, ch. 23, Jerome says: “Whatever has not its
authority from the Scriptures, is

despised as easily as it is approved.”

In the Comments on Ps. 87, transmitted under the name of Jerome, we read:
“The Lord will speak in
the Scripture of the nations and princes who have been in it. How will the
Lord speak? Not by word but

by Scripture. In whose Scripture? The people’s, that is, the Holy Scripture
which is read by all nations,

that is, that they may all understand. Plato wrote not for nations but for a
few people, for scarcely three people understand him. These, however, that
is, the princes of Christ, wrote not for a few but for all people, not in order
that a few but that all might understand. He also says in the Scripture of the
princes, that is, of the apostles and evangelists, of those who have been in it.
See what he says. ‘Who were,’ not

‘who are,’ in order that, with the exception of the apostles, everything that
will be said later may be cut off and not have authority thereafter. Therefore
no matter how holy anyone may be or how eloquent after the apostles, he
has no authority. For the Lord proclaims in the Scripture of the nations and
of the princes, of those who have been in it.”

Chrysostom, in Homily 49, on Matt. 24, says: “When you shall see the
wicked heresy, which is the

army of Antichrist, standing in the holy places of the church, then let those
who are in Judea head for

the mountains, that is, those who are Christians should head for the
Scriptures. For the true Judea is Christendom, and the mountains are the
Scriptures of the prophets and apostles, as it is written: ‘Her foundations are
in the holy mountains.’ But why should all Christians at this time head for
the Scriptures? Because in this period in which heresy has taken possession
of the churches there can be no

proof of true Christianity nor any other refuge for Christians who want to
know the truth of the faith except the divine Scriptures. Earlier we showed
in many ways which is the church of Christ, and which

heathenism. But now there is for those who want to know which is the true
church of Christ no way to
know it except only through the Scriptures. Why? Because heresy has
everything just like the church.

How, then, will anyone who wants to know which is the true church of
Christ know it in the midst of

this great confusion resulting from this similarity, except only through the
Scriptures? The Lord, therefore, knowing that there would be such a great
confusion of things in the last days, commands that

Christians who … want to gain steadfastness in the true faith should take
refuge in nothing else but the

Scriptures. Otherwise, if they look to other things, they will be offended and
will perish, because they

will not know which is the true church, and as a result they will fall into the
abomination of desolation

which stands in the holy places of the church.”

Chrysostom, commenting on Ps. 95, writes: “If anything is said without

Scripture, the thinking of the

hearers limps. But where the testimony proceeds from the divinely given
Scripture, it confirms both the

speech of the preacher and the soul of the hearer.”

Augustine says in his comment on Ps. 57: “Let our books be taken away
from the midst, and let the

Book of God enter there. Listen to Christ speaking. Listen to the truth
talking.”

Tertullian, in Against Hermogenes, says: “I adore the fullness of the

Scripture. Let the workshop of Hermogenes teach that it is written. If it is
not written, let him fear that woe which is destined for those who add or
take away.”
Augustine writes in De peccatorum mentis, Bk. 2, ch. 36: “When there is a
dispute about a very obscure matter in which there is no help from certain
and clear testimonies of the divine Scriptures, human presumption ought to
hold itself in check and not do anything which would cause it to veer to

either side.”

Either Cyril or Origen, In Leviticum, Bk. 5, writes: “If you cannot finish all
the flesh of the sacrifice on the second day, you shall not eat anything of it
on the third day, etc.” “I believe,” he says, “that by the two days the two
testaments can be understood, in which it is permitted to search out and
discuss

every word which pertains to God and from these to gain all knowledge of
things; but if anything remains which the divine Scripture does not decide,
no other third Scripture should be accepted as the

authority of knowledge.”

Augustine, De unitate ecclesiae, ch. 3, states: “Let us not hear: This I say,
this you say; but, thus says the Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord on
whose authority we both agree and which we both believe. There let us seek
the church, there let us discuss our case.” Likewise: “Let those things be
removed from our midst which we quote against each other not from divine
canonical books but from

elsewhere. Someone may perhaps ask: Why do you want to remove these
things from the midst?

Because I do not want the holy church proved by human documents but by
divine oracles.” Likewise:

“Whatever they may adduce, and wherever they may quote from, let us
rather, if we are His sheep, hear

the voice of our Shepherd. Therefore let us search for the church in the
sacred canonical Scriptures.”
Chrysostom states in Homily 13 on 2 Cor.: “Let us not hold the opinions of
the crowd, but let us inquire into the matters themselves. For it is foolish
that we who do not believe others in money matters

but count and reckon ourselves should in matters of far greater importance
simply follow the opinion of

others, especially when we have the most exact scale, indicator, and rule,
the assertion of the divine laws. Therefore I beg you all that you give up
what appeals to this one or that one and that you address

all these questions concerning these things to the Scriptures.”

Chrysostom, commenting on Matt. 22, says: “Whatever is required for

salvation is already

completely fulfilled in the Scriptures.”

Origen states in Homily 25 on Matthew: “In proof of all words which we

advance in matters of doctrine, we ought to set forth the sense of Scripture
as confirming the meaning which we are proposing. For as all gold which
was outside of the temple was not sanctified, so every sense which is

outside of the divine Scripture, however admirable it may appear to some,

is not sacred because it is not

limited by the sense of Scripture. Therefore we should not take our own
ideas for the confirmation of

doctrine, unless someone shows that they are holy because they are
contained in the divine Scriptures as

in temples of God.”

Cyprian, in Ad Pompejum, has a very elegant statement which Augustine

declares to be without doubt the very best. “There is a short way,” he says,
“for pious minds both to dethrone error and to find and
bring out the truth. For when we return to the source and origin of the
divine tradition, human error ceases. If the waters of a channel which
previously flowed freely and plentifully should suddenly fail,

does one not go back to the spring to find the reason of its failure there;
whether the spring has gone dry because its veins have dried up at the
source or whether, while flowing forth from there undiminished

and fully, it has been stopped somewhere along its way? This the priests of
God must do also now, and

if the truth should waver or become shaky in any one point, let us return to
the origin in the Lord, to the doctrine of the evangelists and of the apostles,
and let the manner of our action arise from the same place from which both
the order and origin arose.” And later he shows from where the doctrines
must

be proved: “Whence,” says he, “is this doctrine? Does it come from the
authority of the Lord and of the

Gospel, or does it come from the commands and epistles of the apostles?
For that those things must be

done which are written God testifies and commands when He says to
Joshua: ‘The book of this law shall not depart out of your mouth, that you
may observe to do all things which are written.’ If therefore

it is either commanded in the Gospel or contained in the epistles and the

Acts, then also this sacred doctrine must be observed, etc.”

I am not ignorant of the fact that Cyprian adduces this in defense of his
rebaptism, in which matter he

erred. But Augustine, in refuting this error of Cyprian, does not say that this
principle, or axiom, is false, namely, that we must return to the beginning of
the apostolic doctrine contained in the Scripture
and from there direct the channel into our times, and that all doctrines
which are proposed under this title must be examined according to the
Scripture and proved from it, but he grants that this is best and

to be done without doubt in De [ unico] baptismo contra Donatistas, Bk. 5,

ch. 26. But he shows that Cyprian had erred in the application of the
Scripture. Therefore this principle concerning the Scripture

remains firm and has the agreement and commendation of Augustine.

Augustine, De pastoribus, ch. 14, states: “I seek the voice of the Shepherd.
Read me this from a prophet, read to me from a Psalm, cite from the Law,
cite from the Gospel, cite from an apostle. There I

read about the church which is dispersed in the whole world and about the
statement of the Lord: ‘My

sheep hear My voice and follow Me.’ Let human books be removed! Let
the divine voices sound forth.”

Augustine writes in De unitate ecclesiae, ch. 6: “Read this to us from the

Law, from the Prophets, from the Psalms, from the Gospel, read it from the
apostolic writings, and we shall believe.”

In ch. 10 he says: “Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by

chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the
canonical Scriptures of God.”

In ch. 12: “He who preaches another gospel, let him be cursed, or let him
read it to me in the Holy

Scriptures, and he shall not be cursed.”

In ch. 16: “Let them show their church if they can, not by the speeches and
mumblings of the Africans, not by the councils of their bishops, not by the
writings of any of their champions, not by fraudulent signs and wonders,
because we have been prepared and made cautious also against these things
by the Word of the Lord, but by a command of the Law, by the predictions
of the prophets, by

songs from the Psalms, by the words of the Shepherd Himself, by the
preaching and labors of the evangelists, that is, by all the canonical
authorities of the sacred books.” Likewise: “Let him not say it is true
because this one or that one performed such and such marvelous things, or
because men pray at the

memorials of our dead and are heard, or because such and such things are
taking place there, or because

this one or that one has seen such and such a vision either awake or
dreamed it while asleep. Let these

things be removed because they are either inventions of lying men or signs
of deceiving spirits. For we

also do not say that we should be believed because we are in the church of
Christ, because innumerable

bishops of our communion have commended this church to which we

adhere, or because it has been praised by the councils of our colleagues, or
because such great miracles both of answer to prayer and

of healing take place throughout the world in the holy places which our
communion frequents, etc.”

Likewise: “The Lord Jesus Himself, when after His resurrection He

presented His body to the eyes of

His disciples that they might see and to their hands that they might touch it,
lest they should think they were experiencing some deceit, nevertheless
judged that He must strengthen them with the testimonies

from the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, etc.” “These,” says Augustine,
“are the documents of our

cause, these the foundations, these the pillars.”

And in ch. 20 he concludes: “Demand of them that they show some clear
testimonies from the canonical books. Remember that the Lord said: ‘They
have Moses and Prophets; let them hear them.’”

It is noteworthy that Augustine writes that through this conviction of the

Scripture he had fought his

way out of the Manichaean heresy, Confessions, Bk. 6, ch. 5: “Thou hast
persuaded me that not those who believe but those who do not believe Thy
books, are culpable. Therefore, when we were too weak

to find the truth by the light of reason and the authority of the Holy
Scriptures was necessary for us on

this account, I had already begun to believe that Thou wouldst by no means
have given to that Scripture

so excellent an authority throughout all lands if it had not been Thy will that
through it Thou shouldest

be believed and that through it Thou shouldest be sought.”

In another place he confesses: “But Thou hast not permitted me to be

carried away by any billows of

thought from that faith by which I believed both in Christ, Thy Son, our
Lord, and in the Holy Scriptures, which the authority of Thy holy church
commends as the way which Thou hast provided for

the salvation of men into that life which is to come after death, etc.” The
ancient catechetical instruction was such an introduction that by it the
catechumens were first persuaded that those things which are contained in
the Holy Scripture are true and divinely revealed. And a summary of the
things contained

in the Scripture was set before the catechumens and explained. And when
they answered that they believed this and wanted to observe it, they were
admitted to the sacraments. Thus the catechization was
an introduction to the Scripture, as may be seen from Augustine’s De
catechizandis rudibus, chs. 6, 9, 26, and throughout the whole book.

2 I could quote more statements from the fathers, but once the foundation
has been laid from the Scripture itself, it suffices to keep certain statements
in view which show the agreement of the ancient

church, by which we are so assisted and confirmed that faith nevertheless

rests not on human authority

but on the Word of God. There are, indeed, other remarkable statements of
the fathers which speak in

general about the Word of God and the doctrine of the apostles. But I know
how the opponents make

mockery of them, saying that not all of the words of the Lord nor the whole
doctrine of the apostles is

contained in writing. Therefore I have above all collected the statements of

the ancients which speak distinctly and expressly of the Scripture. But the
testimonies of the ancients which speak of the canon of the sacred Scripture
and of the writings of the fathers we shall later set down in their proper
places.

3 We have therefore the testimony also of the ancient church concerning the
perfection and sufficiency of the Scripture, namely, that it contains all
things which are necessary for faith and morals for living, so that it is the
rule, canon, and norm by which all things which are to be received as the
Word of God in matters of religion must be proved and confirmed. And by
the light of this most evident

truth the eyes of our opponents are so touched that they are compelled to
confess in so many words that

the Holy Scripture is the most certain rule of faith.

But hear, I ask you, how cunningly Andrada escapes this. For from this you
will learn in what sense

they want to be understood when they, for the sake of honor, as the saying
is, at any time say that the

Holy Scripture is the rule of faith. The following are Andrada’s words:
“Everything is, indeed, to be measured by the judgment of the divine
writings in such a way that we do not approve anything different from what
is written. Yet the catholic faith is not to be so circumscribed and confined
by the

narrow limits of the Holy Scripture that we believe and embrace nothing
which is not written in the sacred writings. For although all that is
comprehended in the sacred writings is most true, nevertheless,

not all the things which the Christian faith believes and which religion
venerates have been committed

to the memorials of the Holy Scriptures.”

These words Andrada wrote at Trent, and from this you see what a
mutilated, incomplete, weak, and

patchwork rule of faith they make out of the Scripture. Surely the
testimonies of the ancients do not speak this way of the Scripture, and the
designation “canon” or “rule” does not allow this. For Theophylact says, “A
canon and measuring instrument does not allow any addition or
subtraction.” And

Photius, as quoted in Oecumenius, says: “As you have lost the whole when
you have taken away or added anything to the canon, or rule, so it is also in
the faith.”

And against Eunomius, who declared that he accepted the symbol which the
ancients called the rule
of faith, but in such a way that he indicated that it needed a more exact
addition, Basil, Bk. 1, says: “A rule and measuring stick, so long as nothing
is lacking to make it truly a rule and measuring stick, receives no addition
to make it whole, for an addition happens because of a defect. But if it is
imperfect, it is not at all rightly called a rule and measuring stick, etc.” The
same reply I want to give to Andrada:

“If the Scripture is the rule of faith in no other way than in this, which he
himself has invented, it is not

worthy to be called the rule of faith.” Therefore also Pighius expressly says,
in Hierarchiae ecclesiasticae assertio, Bk. 1, ch. 4, that the Scripture itself,
on account of its obscurity and inconstancy, has need of another sure and
unwavering norm and rule, namely, of the ecclesiastical tradition. Such a

poor, mutilated, incomplete, leaden, uncertain, and wavering rule he

considers the Scripture to be.

4 Go now to Trent and ask of the fathers whether the Holy Scripture is the
rule of faith. The answer our princes received when they were discussing a
guarantee of safe conduct is worthy of perpetual remembrance. Among
other things the request was made by our people that, with respect to
judging controversies, these words of the Council of Basel be inserted:
“And expressly, that in controversies the

divine law, the practice of Christ, of the apostles, and of the primitive
church, together with the councils and teachers which genuinely take their
stand on these, are to be admitted as the truest judge in this council.” This
appeared intolerable to the Tridentine fathers, that the pronouncements of
the councils and fathers were to be received only to the extent that they base
themselves truly on the Holy Scripture.

Therefore they deleted this formula of the Council of Basel and substituted
for it these words: “And expressly, that matters of controversy be dealt with
in the Council of Trent according to the Holy Scripture, the traditions of the
apostles, the approved councils, the consensus of the Catholic Church, and
the authority of the holy fathers.”

5 Andrada indeed believes that he can overthrow all testimonies, both those
of the Word of God itself and those of the fathers, concerning the perfection
and sufficiency of the Scripture by a single

(“demonstration”). He has heard that the demonstrations in geometry

compel rather than prove. The following is his own demonstration: “God at
all times has a church in the world. But the true church cannot be severed or
separated from the true faith. Therefore we must necessarily believe
whatever either in times past or now the church either has transmitted or
believes, even if it cannot be proved by

any testimony of Scripture; and in consequence, not the Scripture but the
understanding of the church is

the most exact norm according to which our faith must be directed and
formed.” This, I swear, is a brave

, which attempts with one blow to drive the Scripture from its place, that it
should not be

the rule and canon of our faith. This single demonstration could have
condemned even Christ and all the

apostles, because they fought with the testimonies of Scripture against the
consensus of the pharisaic church; but the answer is easy.

It is as true as it can be that the true church cannot be separated from the
true doctrine of faith. For

that is the true church which embraces and confesses the true and sound
doctrine of the Word of God.

But when that body of men which has the title of the church departs from
the true doctrine of the Word
of God, it does not follow on that account, either that the sound doctrine is
false, or that the errors, which that body of men holds, are the truth; but this
follows, that that body of men, when it no longer

has the true doctrine, is not the true church. Therefore the truth of the Word
of God does not depend on

the church, as Andrada would have it, but on the contrary, the truth of the
church depends on and is judged by the truth of the Word of God, which it
holds and confesses. For the church is not an autocratic

or independent body of men, but it ought to show and prove by sure and
firm testimonies that the doctrine which it holds and confesses is divinely
revealed, true, and sound. These testimonies she takes

from the canonical books of the Scripture, as we have proved from

expressions of the ancients. This, too, must be considered, that also in the
true church hay, wood, and stubble are often built on the foundation,
according to 1 Cor. 3:12. At times the true church, because another false
assembly has prevailed over her and become preeminent, lies so hidden, as
it were, that Elias says: “I alone am left.”

And “when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?” If anyone
therefore had judged concerning the truth of the doctrine at the time of Elias
from the consensus of the visible congregation,

he would have been completely in error. Therefore I set the statement which
is found in Decree 11, Question 30, in opposition to the demands of
Andrada: “If anyone who is a leader either says or commands anything
contrary to the will of God or beside that which is taught in the Scriptures,
let him

be considered a false witness of God and guilty of sacrilege.” I also set

against him the previously quoted statement of Augustine. For in the
dispute concerning the true church there are many great questions whose
acceptance must not be demanded without proofs as in geometry, but they
must be proved in a manner that befits the church. An instance is the
question whether that visible communion
which arrogates to itself and usurps the title of church is always and
indubitably the true church, regardless whether it possesses the truth of the
Word of God or not. A second example is the question

whether one must judge from the posture of the church what the true
doctrine is or whether one must

judge from the divinely revealed doctrine which the true church is.
Certainly, when Christ indicated the

mark of the true church, He set up this one: “My sheep hear My voice.”
And Paul says: “You are built

on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” Augustine, disputing

against Petilianus about the questions what and where the church is, does
not want to have it sought and pointed out in the speeches

and applause of men, nor in councils, nor in the writings of the fathers, nor
in signs and wonders, but in the divine canonical books. “Let us not hear:
‘This I say, this you say,’ but let us hear: ‘Thus saith the Lord.’” Therefore
what Andrada dreams is wrong, that something is to be believed because
that visible

communion which bears the title church has observed it and observes it,
although it cannot be proved by

any testimony of the Scripture. For the statement of Augustine is true: “If
anyone, either an apostle, or

the church, or even an angel from heaven shall preach to us concerning any
matter pertaining to our faith and life anything beyond that which we have
received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospel, let him be cursed!”

6 There are besides this two other chief topics of the papalists, namely,
concerning the uncertainty, or ambiguity, and concerning the obscurity of
the Scripture; but into these my opponent Andrada does not
want to enter. For he concedes that nothing is truer, more certain, firmer,
and more unchangeable than

Holy Scripture, and that wherever the Scripture transmits dogmas or

precepts, it is reliable and not in

the least ambiguous. But he maintains that the words of the Scripture are
transferred from their proper

and genuine sense by the heretics and arbitrarily drawn to various and
diverse meanings. On these things we are agreed; for we are not arguing
about what the Scripture becomes to the heretics by accident but about what
it is per se.

With respect to the obscurity of the Scripture Andrada cannot reject that
distinction which I had adduced from Augustine against the Jesuits, that
although there are many obscure and difficult passages

in the Scripture, yet everything that pertains to faith and morals for living is
found in plain and clear passages of Scripture. He is compelled also to
approve the statement of Irenaeus: “Granted that there are

many obscure and figurative passages of Scripture, the rule itself of the
truth is nevertheless set forth openly in the Holy Scriptures.” But lest he
should seem to be doing nothing, Andrada shouts loudly about the great
danger which may lie in the obscure passages of Scripture if someone twists
them inquisitively or rashly to an ungodly and wicked meaning. But in all
this shouting he fights without an

opponent. For we also say that dark passages of Scripture are not to be
explained against that meaning

which is stated in the plain and clear passages of Scripture; yes, that from
the obscure passages of Scripture no meaning is to be construed which
cannot be shown in other clear passages of Scripture.

But when Andrada seems to suggest that certain mysteries of the faith are
taken only from obscure
passages of Scripture, we simply oppose him with the words of Augustine:
“Almost nothing is brought

out of these obscurities which is not found stated in the plainest manner
elsewhere.” And in Contra litteras Petiliani, ch. 5, he says: “Because many
things are stated figuratively and obscurely in the Scripture, let us choose
the clear and manifest parts. If these were not found in the Holy Scriptures,
there would be no way in which the closed things could be opened and the
obscure illumined. Therefore

those things must meanwhile be laid aside which are stated obscurely and
wrapped in a veil of figures

and can be interpreted according to our sense and also according to theirs.”
And in ch. 16 he says: “Let

them not gather and quote what is said obscurely or ambiguously or

figuratively and which each one

interprets as he wants to. … For such things cannot be rightly understood

and expounded unless the things which are stated most clearly are before
held with firm faith.”

Again he says: “Produce some passage which requires no interpreter and by

which one cannot be convinced that it is spoken of something else but you
are attempting to twist it to your own sense.” In

ch. 19 he writes: “What is put ambiguously and may be interpreted in our

favor and in yours will not

help your cause at all; but it is evident that such things only sustain a bad
cause by delaying settlement.”

Again: “These passages are mysterious, they are veiled, they are figurative;
we urgently ask for something clear which does not need an interpreter.” To
this distinction about the obscurity and perspicuity of the Scripture let also
another be added, of which Paul says in 2 Cor. 4:3–4: “If our Gospel is
veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of
this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from
seeing the light of the Gospel”; and in 1 Cor. 2:14: “The

unspiritual man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God.” But God
opens minds in order that they may understand the Scriptures, when He
gives the Holy Spirit, Luke 24:45; Jer. 31:33–34. Here belongs also what
Augustine says in Letter No. 3: “So great is the depth of the Scripture of the
Christians that I would daily advance in them if I would try to learn them
alone from early childhood

until decrepit old age in complete leisure, with the greatest zeal, and with
superior intelligence; not for this reason, that one attains in them to what is
necessary for salvation with such great difficulty but because, after anyone
has there taken hold of faith, without which one cannot live piously and
rightly, so many things that are dark on account of the manifold shadows
which enfold the mysteries remain to be

understood by those who are making progress and so great a depth of

wisdom lies hidden not only in the

words with which they are said but also in the things which are to be
understood that what the Scripture

says applies to the most aged, the sharpest, to those who have the most
burning desire to learn: ‘Where

man ends, he begins’ (Sirach 18:7).”

7 When these distinctions are made and preserved, there remains firm and
immovable Ps. 19:8: “The

commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes”; Ps. 119:105:

“Thy Word is a lamp to my feet

and a light to my path”; 2 Peter 1:19: “The prophetic word like a lantern
shines in a dark place.”
Cyril, Contra Julianum, Bk. 7, in reply to the objection that the Scripture
employs everyday and even trite diction, says: “That they might be
understandable to all, small and great, they have for practical purposes been
set down in familiar language, so that they are not beyond anyone’s
comprehension. And

in Bk. 9 he writes: “Julian does not know that nothing is difficult for those
who are versed in the Scriptures of the Law. But to him and his followers
any statement in them is altogether inaccessible.”

Lactantius says: “Should not God, the Maker of the mind and voice, and of
language, be able to speak

clearly? Yes, with the highest foresight He willed that those things which
are divine should be unadorned, in order that all might understand what He
Himself was saying to all.”

Augustine says: “God wanted this same word to be complete and brief, and
not obscure: brief, lest

men should not have time to read it; clear, lest someone might say: I could
not understand it.”

Chrysostom, in Homily 1 on John, writes: “His doctrine is clearer and

brighter than the sun.” In his

Homily 9 on 2 Cor., he says: “Whenever Paul says anything dark, he also

interprets himself.”

Ambrose, in Bk. 3, Letter No. 5, writes “He speaks with us in this way, that
we may understand his

speech.” In Bk. 2, Letter No. 7: “Paul explains himself in most of his

epistles in such a way that whoever treats them may find nothing of his own
to add, or if he wants to say something, he performs

the office of a grammarian rather than that of an expounder.”

Augustine, In Johannis Evangelium tractatus, 21: “Perhaps we act rashly
because we want to examine and investigate the words of God. But why
were they spoken, if not that they may be known:

why have they sounded, except that they may be heard: why have they been
heard, except that they may

be understood?”

SECTION VI

Concerning the Canonical Books, or the Canonical Scripture

From the First Decree of the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent

The synod judged that a list of the sacred books should be inserted in this
decree, lest doubt should

arise in anyone’s mind which the books are that are accepted by this synod.

The following are the books of the Old Testament: The five books of
Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Then Joshua,
Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Chronicles,

two of Ezra, the first and second, which is called Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith,
Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, the Proverbs of Solomon,
Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Wisdom,

Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, the 12 minor

prophets, namely, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum,
Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, two of the

Maccabees, the first and the second.

Of the New Testament: The four gospels according to Matthew, Mark,

Luke, and John, the Acts of

the Apostles written by Luke, the evangelist, 14 epistles of the blessed

apostle Paul, namely, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the
Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the
Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews, two
of the apostle Peter, three of the apostle John, one of James, one of the
apostle Jude, the Apocalypse of the apostle John.

If anyone does not accept these books whole, with all their parts, as they
have customarily been read

in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old Vulgate Latin edition, as
sacred and canonical, and

knowingly and intentionally despises the above-named traditions, let him be

anathema.

Let all, therefore, understand in what order and way this synod, after it has
laid the foundation of the

confession of faith, will proceed and what testimonies and aids it will
chiefly use for confirming dogmas and restoring morals in the church.

Examination

1 Three questions in particular belong to this section. The first, for what
reason the Scripture has this name, that it is called canonical, and how this
designation confirms what we said so far about the authority, perfection,
and sufficiency of the Scripture. The second, by whom and how the canon
of the

Scripture was established, or whence the Scripture has canonical authority.

The third, which are the canonical books, and which the apocryphal.

2 It is foolishness when some babble that the Scripture is called canonical

because that authority was bestowed on it by a canon of some council, for
they cannot even name or invent any council in which

such a canon of Scripture was first set up, as if the Scripture had not had
such authority before. For what the Canons, which are being circulated
under the name of the apostles, mention concerning this matter
is so disgusting that even Lindanus rejects it as spurious. For they declare
also the third book of the Maccabees to be canonical, yes, they place the
books of Clement among the canonical, concerning which a far different
judgment is found in Eusebius, Bk. 3, ch. 38. Therefore the Scripture is not
called

canonical in the same way as hours or satisfactions are called canonical, or

as the “evil beasts and lazy

gluttons” who waste the goods of the church are called canonici.

3 Doubtless the designation canonical is taken from Paul, who says, Gal.
6:16: “Peace and mercy be

upon all who walk by this canon, or rule”; and in Phil. 3:16: “Walk by the
same canon, or rule.” In 2

Cor. 10:13, he calls the apostolic doctrine a “canon,” concerning which God
had measured out to Paul

how far he should get with its propagation. But this designation is taken
from Ps. 19:4: “Their ‘rule’ has gone out through all the earth, and their
words to the end of the world.” The words or doctrine of the

apostles he calls , which means “canon,” or “rule,” consisting of a line, or

rope, which is held to a building or any other work in order that it may not
err from the true plan or from the order which it ought to follow but may be
completed and finished according to a certain order and necessary plan.
This

is a most pleasing metaphor which is applied to the doctrine of the apostles.

For the church is the house
of the living God, the building of which is from God, and the builders are
the ministers of the Word. In

order that through the ministry of the Word, or the preaching of the
doctrine, the building may be correctly begun and be completed and
finished in the right order and proper manner, a certain canon, or

rule, is necessary, according to which the builders perform their work, in

order that the building may not depart from the right order and proper plan.
This rule is the doctrine of the apostles, Ps. 19. But because this doctrine, as
much as is sufficient and necessary, is contained in writing, the Scripture is
called canonical, the canonical books, or the canon of Scripture, because it
is such a rule, to which the building of the faith of the church must be
formed and fitted, so that whatever agrees with this rule is judged to

be right, sound, and apostolic, and whatever does not square with it, but
departs or errs from that rule,

either by too much or by too little, is rightly judged to be spurious,

corrupted, erroneous. And Paul employs the expression “to walk according
to the rule.” As the front edge of a military camp is drawn

up according to a certain order, according to which it will proceed against

hostile incursions, so also the church, when it wants to walk in the path of
the true faith, according to Rom. 4, in order to be fortified against the
danger of corruptions, has need of a certain canon, or rule, according to
which it marches,

within the limits and confines of which it stays, lest it fall into error. And
Paul says: “Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule.” This
canon, or rule, is the doctrine divinely revealed to the human

race from the beginning of the world through the patriarchs and prophets,
through Christ and the apostles. And because this doctrine was committed
to writings by the will of God, therefore the Scripture is called canonical.

4 The designation of the Scripture as canonical is therefore very honorable,

and it proves and confirms what we have said so far concerning its
authority, perfection, and sufficiency. For, as Varinus

notes, “canon” is also the name for that part of the scale which is fastened
to the middle of the weighing beam, shaped like a tongue, and shows either
the balance, or that there is too much or too little. This

metaphor Augustine has most beautifully expressed De baptismo contra

Donatistas, Bk. 2, ch. 6: “Let us not bring forward deceptive scales with
which we may weigh out what we want and how we want,

according to our own will, saying: ‘This is heavy, this is light’; but let us
bring forward the divine scales from the Holy Scriptures, as from the
treasuries of the Lord, and by it weigh what is heavier; or rather

let us not weigh, but let us recognize what has been weighed by the Lord.”
This is a most beautiful explanation, showing in what sense the Scripture is
called canonical.

5 When Aristotle, Politics, Bk. 2, ch. 8, discusses the question whether it is

better to institute political government according to written law or
according to what seems equitable to men, he employs the word

“canon.” For he says: “Everything is done better according to law than

according to the will of men, for

this is not a safe canon.” As therefore the written law is the canon of secular
courts, so the Scripture is called canonical because it is the certain and
infallible rule of faith. Varinus defines a canon as

…, that is, “an infallible rule, or measure, which by no means allows that
anything

be either added to or subtracted from it.” In this way the Scripture is truly
canonical. Thus Cicero says

that Tyro is the “canon” of his writings, because he tempers, corrects, and
revises them. Demosthenes says in his speech On the Crown: “The Greeks
regarded it as the standard and canon of good men to preserve liberty.” And
Coelius says that those harmonists of Pythagoras who judged concerning

harmonies not only by hearing but most of all by mathematical ratio were
called “canonical.” Plutarch

says in Solon: “Certain chronicles were called ‘canons,’ and the reason for
this designation can readily be understood.” These observations illustrate
and explain the reason why the Scripture is called canonical.

6 For this meaning many very beautiful statements of Augustine are found,
some of which we shall

quote, since they show very clearly the perfection and sufficiency of
Scripture.

Contra Faustum Manichaeum, Bk. 11, ch. 5: “Concerning such books as

are written not with the authority to command us but for exercise for
proficiency, it can be said that they contain something which is perhaps not
in agreement with truth that is more hidden and more difficult to
distinguish. This

kind of writing is to be read not with the necessity of believing but with
liberty of judging it. That, however, a place may not be denied to them and
that posterity may not be deprived of the most wholesome labor of treating
and dealing with difficult questions of language and style, there has been

distinguished from the books of later writers the excellency of the canonical
authority of the Old and the New Testament, which was confirmed during
the time of the apostles and, through the succession of bishops and the
propagation of churches, has been, as it were, placed on a lofty throne, to
which every

faithful and pious intellect should submit. If anything seemingly absurd

should appear here, it is not permissible to say, ‘The author of this book did
not hold to the truth,’ but, ‘Either this manuscript is faulty, or the translator
erred, or you do not understand it.’
“However, in the little works of later writers, which are contained in
innumerable books but which

can by no means be placed on a level with that most sacred excellency of

the canonical Scriptures, even

though in some of them the same truth is found, the authority is far from
equal. Therefore, if by chance

some things in these are thought to be not in harmony with the truth
because they are not understood as

they were meant, the reader or hearer is free to judge; he may either
approve what pleases him or reject

what offends him. And for all things like that no one will be reproved if
they displease him or if he refuses to believe them, unless they are defended
with good reason or by canonical authority, so that what is there either
disputed or reported is demonstrated either to be so or that it could have
been so.

But in that canonical eminence of the sacred writings, even if only a single
prophet, or one apostle or

evangelist is declared by the authority of the canon to have said a certain

thing in his writing, one is not permitted to doubt that it is true. Otherwise
there will not be one page by which the infirmity of human

inexperience may be corrected if the most wholesome authority of these

books is either entirely abolished because it is despised or beclouded
because it is menaced.”

Augustine clearly states that the canonical Scripture corrects the infirmity
of human inexperience, that every faithful and pious intellect ought to serve
it, and that by it all other things must be proved and judged.

In Contra Faustum, Bk. 13, ch. 5, we read that although the Manichaeans
did not accept the Scripture, they maintained that they believed the report
concerning Christ. Augustine replies: “If you believe the report about
Christ, see whether this is a proper witness; consider what disaster you are
headed for. You reject the Scriptures which are confirmed and commended
by such great authority; you

perform no miracles, and if you performed any, we would shun even those
in your case according to the

Lord’s instruction, Matt. 24:24. He wanted absolutely nothing to be

believed against the confirmed authority of the Scriptures, etc.”

In De baptismo contra Donatistas, Bk. 2, ch. 3, Augustine writes: “You are

in the habit of holding up to us the writings and the advice of Cyprian. But
who does not know that the sacred canonical Scripture,

both of the Old and of the New Testament, is contained in certain fixed
confines and that it is placed

above all the later writings of the bishops in such a way that it is not
possible at all to doubt or dispute whether something concerning which it is
certain that it is contained in the Scripture is true or right?

But the writings of the bishops, which were or are being written after the
establishment of the canon,

may be reproved by a perhaps wiser speech of one who is more experienced

in the matter, by the weightier authority of other bishops, by the intelligence
of the doctors, and by councils, if by chance something in them has
deviated from the truth.”

In Ad Vincentium Donatistam, Letter No. 48, Augustine writes: “Do not

gather fallacies from the writings of bishops against the divine testimonies,
first, because this kind of writings must be distinguished from the authority
of the canon. For they are not read in such a way as if a testimony might be
brought forward from them that it is not permitted to think otherwise if
perhaps they had a different understanding than the truth demands.”
In the Tractatus de pastoribus we read: “He made the authors of the divine
Scriptures to be the mountains of Israel. There feed that you may graze
securely. Whatever you shall hear from there, let it

taste good to you; what you hear outside of them, reject; lest you wander in
the fog, gather around the

sense of the Scripture; there are the delights of your heart; there is nothing
poisonous, nothing alien, there is only the richest pasture.”

In Contra Faustum, Bk. 23, Augustine says: “What Faustus has written
concerning the begetting of

Mary does not bind me because it is not canonical.”

Commenting on Ps. 67, he says: “One must give assent to the testimonies of
both Testaments in such

a way that when anything is brought forth or proved from them, all
contention is brought to a peaceful

end.” Again: “The Word of truth is given to preachers when the authority of
the two Testaments is not

forsaken by them.”

In De nuptiis et concupiscentia, Bk. 2, ch. 33, he writes: “Thus the

controversy seeks a judge.

Therefore let Christ judge, and let Him say whom His death has profited.
‘This,’ He says, ‘is My blood,

etc’ Together with Him let also the apostle judge who exclaims: ‘He spared
not His own Son, etc.’”

In Contra Cresconium, Bk. 2, ch. 31, he says: “We do Cyprian no wrong

when we distinguish any and all of his writings from the canonical authority
of the divine Scriptures. For it is not without cause that the canon of the
church was fixed with such wholesome vigilance, to which the certain
books of the

prophets and apostles belong, which we dare not at all judge, and according
to which we judge concerning other writings, whether of believers or of
unbelievers.”

In ch. 32 of the same book he writes: “I am not bound by the authority of

this epistle because I do not

hold the writings of Cyprian as canonical, but I consider them according to

the canonical, and I accept

whatever in them agrees with the authority of the divine Scriptures with his
approval, but what does not

agree I reject with his permission.”

In Letter No. 19, to Jerome, he writes: “I have learned to bestow this fear
and honor only on those

books of the Scriptures which are now called canonical, that I most firmly
believe that no author of them erred in anything in writing; the others I read
in such a way that, no matter how preeminent they

are in saintliness and learning, I do not believe a thing true just because it
was their opinion but because they were able to persuade me either through
the canonical authors or through an acceptable reason which is not
inconsistent with the truth.”

In Letter No. 112, to Paulina, he writes: “If a thing is established with the
clear authority of the divine Scriptures, namely, of those which are called
canonical in the church, it must be believed without doubt.

But other witnesses or testimonies by which one is persuaded that

something must be believed you are

free to believe or not to believe, according as you have found them either to
merit or not to merit credence.”
Because Augustine repeatedly mentions that all other writers ought to prove
either from the canonical

books or with a certain or a credible reason that what they write is true, the
question is what he means

by a credible reason. This he clearly explains with many words in Letter

No. 112, to Paulina: “If we would refuse to believe everything which we
have not seen nor learned from the sacred Scriptures, how

would we know that there are cities where we have never been or that
Rome was founded by Romulus?

How would we know who our parents are and from which grandparents and
forefathers we are

descended? Although we know many such things, we have learnt them not
by having been in any sense

present nor through the authority of canonical pronouncements but through

the report of others, whose

testimony at least in such matters we felt we ought not to doubt. If our faith
is deceived anywhere in such matters, we judge that this is not dangerous if
it is not against the faith by which godliness is formed. This my preface
instructs you and others who will read this in advance what kind of judges
you

ought to be either of my writings or of anyone else’s, in order that you may

neither imagine that you know what you don’t know nor rashly believe
what you have not perceived, either through the senses of

the body or by mental contemplation of a matter which must be known

from the evidence, nor have learned through the authority of the canonical
Scriptures that it must be believed, etc.” This statement of Augustine I have
written out here in its entirety that it may be known for certain what
Augustine means
when he says that what the fathers affirm must be proved either by the
authority of the canonical Scripture or by other certain or credible reasons.
For the papalists would soon fabricate out of these

“reasons” either their traditions or something else. However, we have

Augustine’s own declaration.

7 The other question in this matter is: Since the authority of the canonical
Scripture is so very great and eminent, whence does the canon have it, or
from where has it received it, or by whom was that canon fixed to which
certain canonical books belong? The papalists say that the Scripture has this
authority from the church. Pighius interprets this to mean that the authority
of the church is, in a certain way, above the authority of the Scripture,
because the authority of the church imparted canonical authority to certain
Scriptures, and indeed to the foremost ones, which they had among us
neither of themselves nor from their authors. Others say that the authority of
the church is so far above the Scripture that the church was able to reject
gospels written by apostles, for example, by Matthias, James, Bartholomew,
Thomas, Philip, Peter, and Andrew; and that on the other hand it was able
to impart canonical authority to those which were written by Mark and
Luke, who were not apostles, but

who, as Lindanus says, were apostates before, who, according to John 6,

had fallen away from Christ.

There are even some who are not afraid to blaspheme the sacred, divinely
inspired Scripture, saying that

if the authority of the church were to be taken from it, it would, of itself,
have no more authority than

the fables of Aesop.

From these assumptions they construct this axiom: “What the church
transmits and teaches, even without any testimony of Scripture, has the
same authority as the canonical Scripture, on which the church has
bestowed this authority.”
8 But it is wholly false that the church has the authority to reject or
disapprove any Scripture concerning which it is firmly established that it is
divinely inspired. False is also this, that the Holy Scripture has neither from
itself nor from its authors any canonical authority but that it has borrowed it
from elsewhere, namely, from the authority of the church.

It is, however, manifest blasphemy that, if the present church, namely, the
Roman pontiff with his prelates, would desert the Scripture with their
authority, it would of itself have no more authority than

Aesop’s fables.

The canonical Scripture has its eminent authority chiefly from this, that it is
divinely inspired, 2 Tim.

3:16, that is, that it was not brought forth by the will of men but that the
men of God, moved by the Holy Spirit, both spoke and wrote, 2 Peter 1:21.
But in order that this whole necessary matter might be

firmly established against all impostures, God chose certain definite persons
that they should write and

adorned them with many miracles and divine testimonies that there should
be no doubt that what they

wrote was divinely inspired.

9 Finally those divinely inspired writings were at the time of their writing
laid before, delivered, and commended to the church with public attestation
in order that she might, by exercising the greatest care

and foresight, preserve them uncorrupted, transmit them as from hand to

hand, and commend them to

posterity. And as the ancient church at the time of Moses, Joshua, and the
prophets, so also the primitive church at the time of the apostles was able to
testify with certainty which writings were divinely inspired. For she knew
the authors whom God had commended to the church by special
testimonies; she

knew also which were the writings which had been composed by them; and
from the things which she

had received by oral tradition from the apostles she could judge that the
things which had been written

were the same teaching which the apostles had delivered with the living
voice. Thus in John 21:24 the

testimony of the apostle and the witness of the church are combined: “This
is the disciple … who has

written these things; and we know that his testimony is true.” Paul marked
his epistles with a certain sign as genuine. The Scripture therefore has its
canonical authority chiefly from the Holy Spirit, by whose impulse and
inspiration it was brought forth; thereafter from the writers to whom God
gave sure

and special testimonies of the truth. After this it has authority from the
primitive church as from a witness at whose time these writings were
published and approved.

10 This witness of the primitive church concerning the divinely inspired

writings was later transmitted to posterity by a perpetual succession from
hand to hand and diligently preserved in reliable

histories of antiquity in order that the subsequent church might be the

custodian of the witness of the primitive church concerning the Scripture.
There is therefore a very great difference between (1) the witness of the
primitive church which was at the time of the apostles and (2) the witness
of the church

which followed immediately after the time of the apostles and which had
received the witness of the first church and (3) the witness of the present
church concerning the Scripture. For if the church, both
that which is now and that which was before, can show the witness of those
who received and knew the

witness of the first church concerning the genuine writings, we believe her
as we do a witness who proves his statements. But she has no power to
establish or to decide anything concerning the sacred writings for which she
cannot produce reliable documents from the testimony of the primitive
church.

These things are undeniably true, and the whole dispute can be most
correctly understood from this basis.

11 What was the canon of the Old Testament Scripture can be understood
from statements which are

found in the New Testament. In the New Testament John saw the writings
of three evangelists and approved them. Paul marked his epistles with a
peculiar sign; Peter saw them and commended them to

the church. John added both his own testimony and that of the church to his
writings. For it is not just

any authority that is required, but that of the apostles, in order that a writing
in the New Testament may be proved to be canonical, or divinely inspired.

Thus when Tertullian is about to refute a gospel which had been falsified by
Marcion, he says: “First

of all we establish that a Gospel document has as its authors apostles, to

whom this task of promulgating

the Gospel was assigned by the Lord Himself. If [it has as authors] also
apostolic men, these are nevertheless not alone but are together with
apostles, for the preaching of [mere] disciples18 could become suspect, if
the authority of the teachers, or rather, of Christ, who made the apostles
teachers, did not stand with it.” And soon he adds that, because the Gospel
was spread before Luke, it thus had a completely authentic preparation by
which it came to Luke, and with the assistance of its testimony Luke also
could be admitted. And later: “I say that this Gospel of Luke which we
defend was established with the apostolic churches and now with all
churches from the beginning of its publication.

The same authority of the apostolic churches supports also the other
Gospels which we possess through

them and according to them.”

And Augustine says: “They wrote at a time in which they earned the
approval not only of the church

of Christ but also of the apostles themselves who were then still living.”

Worth remembering is a story which Jerome quotes from Tertullian, from

which it can be understood

with what watchful care the canon of the canonical books of the New
Testament was established. To John God granted a longer life after the
death of the other apostles in order that apostolic watchfulness

might look out for the church of all posterity, lest counterfeit writings might
be foisted on the churches under the name of apostles. Jerome tells the story
thus: “When after the death of Paul a certain booklet

was circulated about the journey of Paul and Thekla and was disseminated
under the name and title of

Paul, a certain presbyter in Asia, a great admirer of Paul, was convicted

before the apostle John of being the author of that book and confessed that
he had done this from love to Paul and that this was the reason he had let
the booklet get out.”

12 Augustine gives this reason for the fact that Mark and Luke, who were
not apostles, were divinely called to write a Gospel: “In order that it might
not be thought, with respect to the preaching and reception of the Gospel,
that it makes any difference whether those proclaim it who followed the
Lord

while He was visible here in the flesh … or those who believed the things
faithfully learned from them,

it was so ordered by divine providence through the Holy Spirit that also to
certain among those who followed the first apostles there was imparted
authority not only to proclaim but also to write the Gospel, etc.” Here
belongs the other statement of Augustine: “They wrote at a time in which
they earned the approval not only of the church of Christ but also of the
apostles themselves who were still

living.”

In this way the canon of the Scripture was established in the New
Testament, and from this the canonical Scripture has its eminent authority.

13 Here belongs also what Tertullian declares in De praescriptione, that the

authentic writings of the apostles, that is, the very autographs of the
apostles were at his time in existence, preserved in apostolic churches.
Eusebius also tells somewhere about a certain writing which passed under
the name of Paul

that some insisted that the original was extant in Tarsus in Cilicia, but it was
found that this report was false. You see therefore what proofs the church
which followed after the time of the apostles employed

in determining the genuine books.

14 This testimony of the first church, which was during the time of the
apostles, concerning the genuine writings of the apostles, the posterity
which followed immediately retained and preserved so steadfastly and
faithfully that, when afterwards many writings were put forth purportedly
written by apostles, they were rejected and condemned as spurious and
counterfeit, in the first place, because it could not be shown and proved
from the witness of the first church that they had either been written by
apostles or acknowledged by living apostles and delivered and commended
to the first church; in the second place, because they brought a strange
doctrine, not in harmony with that which the church had

received from the apostles and which was still fresh in its memory. Thus
Serapion, in Eusebius, Bk. 6,

judged concerning a certain gospel which claimed Peter as its author: “We
receive Peter and the other

apostles as we receive Christ Himself, but the ‘spurious writings’ we reject,

knowing full well what they

say and mean, because we know that ‘we have not received’ such things by
tradition from the apostles,

etc.” By the application of these two criteria the ancient church rejected
certain writings outright as spurious and counterfeit, others, however,
concerning which there were either not the most certain or not unanimous
testimonies of the primitive church, she did not condemn outright, but she
wanted nevertheless to distinguish and separate them from those writings
which were without any doubt and contradiction true and legitimate.”

Thus Eusebius, Bk. 3, chs. 3 and 25, distinguishes three classes of writings:
The first, those which are

neither spurious nor doubtful, but

, that is,

“without contradiction testamentary, legitimate, catholic, and according to

the witness of all churches certain.” In the second class he places those
writings concerning which doubt had been voiced whether

they had certainly been written and published by those apostles whose name
and title they bear, because
they had suffered contradition, since the testimonies of the primitive church
were not in agreement; these were, however, not condemned outright but
used and read by many churchmen as not

unprofitable. And as the writings of the first class were called canonical and
catholic, so those which belong to the second class were called sacred
writings, ecclesiastical writings, and by Jerome, apocrypha. This careful
distinction was made with wholesome watchfulness, that there might be a
sure

canon and rule for the dogmas, or faith, in the church: “That they may
know,” Cyprian says, “from which fountains they must draw the drink of
the Word of God for themselves.” Concerning the apocryphal, or
ecclesiastical, writings which belong to the second class, Jerome says: “The
church reads

these for the edification of the people, not to confirm the authority of the
dogmas of the church.” Again:

“The authority of these writings is judged to be less suitable for establishing

things which are disputed.”

Cyprian (unless it is Rufinus) says in the exposition of the Creed: “They

wanted these to be read in the

churches but not exalted to a position of authority to confirm the faith from
them.”

Eusebius makes a third class of those writings which are spurious,

counterfeit, and false. These were

rejected outright, and condemned.

15 Now the question is: (1) Can the church which followed this primitive
and most ancient church, or that which is now the church, make these
writings, which were rejected and condemned in this manner,
authentic? It is evident that it can not. (2) Can those writings which have
certain and firm testimonies of their authority from the witness of the first
church be rejected and disapproved? I do not think that anyone will say this.
(3) Can the present church make those writings concerning which the most
ancient

church had doubts because of the contradiction of some, because the

witness of the primitive church concerning them did not agree — can the
present church, I ask, make those writings canonical, catholic,

and equal to those which are of the first class? The papalists not only argue
that they can do this, but

they in fact usurp this authority in that they totally obliterate the necessary
distinction of the primitive and most ancient church between the canonical
and apocryphal, or ecclesiastical, books.

But it is wholly clear from what we have said that the church by no means
has this authority, for in

the same way she could also either reject canonical books or declare
spurious books canonical. This whole matter, as we have said, depends on
sure attestations of that church which was at the time of the

apostles, which witness the immediately following church accepted and

preserved in historical works which are sure and worthy of credence. Where
therefore reliable testimonies of the primitive and most

ancient church cannot be produced from the testimonies of ancient men

who lived not long after the times of the apostles that the books concerning
which there is controversy were without contradiction

and doubt received by and commended to the church as legitimate and

reliable, any and all human decrees are of no avail. For what insolent
presumption it is to assert: Although the primitive church and

the oldest subsequent church had doubts concerning these books on account
of the contradiction of many churchmen because not sufficiently certain and
firm testimonies of their authenticity were found,

in spite of all this, we decree that they must be received as altogether certain
and of equal authority with those which have always been judged to be
legitimate.

With what evidence do you prove this your decree? Pighius answers: “The
church has this power, that

she can impart to certain writings a canonical authority which they do not
have of themselves or from

their authors.” They could, it would seem, also impart this authority either
to the fables of Aesop or the true stories of Lucian. Not that I would want to
equate those books concerning which there is controversy with the fables of
Aesop (for with Cyprian and Jerome I grant to them that honorable place

which they always had in the ancient church), but by a reductio ad

absurdum, as the logicians say, I wanted to show that in the disputation
concerning the books of Scripture the church does not have such

power, that it can make true writings out of false, false out of true, out of
doubtful and uncertain, certain, canonical, and legitimate, without any
certain and firm proofs which, as we have said above, are

required for this matter.

16 Clearly in the same manner Augustine, when he disputes concerning the

fixing of the canon of the books of Scripture, does not ascribe to the church
independent power alongside the Scripture, but he makes mention of
attestation; and let it be considered what kind of attestation he means. In
Contra Faustum, Bk. 28, ch. 2, he says: “When I begin to quote the Gospel
of Matthew, you will say at once that that account is not Matthew’s. What
will you quote to me instead? Perhaps some book of Manichaeus. As I
therefore believe that this book is by Manichaeus because it is from the time
in which
Manichaeus lived in the flesh, preserved and brought down through his
disciples by means of a certain

succession of your leaders to your own times, so you should also believe
that this book is by Matthew,

since the church also handed it down from the time in which Matthew
himself lived in the flesh, in an

unbroken sequence and by means of a sure, unbroken succession to these

our times.”

In Bk. 33, ch. 6, he writes: “Also among secular writings many were later
brought forward under the

names of renowned authors and repudiated either because they did not at all
agree with those which were known for certain as theirs or because they did
not manage to become known at all in the time in

which these [renowned authors] wrote and to be transmitted or commended

to posterity either by the authors themselves or by their best friends. How
do men know that the books of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero,

and other authors like them are their own, if not through the continuous
witness of the times which came after them? And how do we know with
respect to the writings of the fathers what each one wrote,

if not because the writer made it known and published it to whomever he

could in the times in which he

wrote it; and from there these things, through an acquaintance extending to
more and more people and

spread more widely to posterity, came down even to our times? Behold
these writings which we have in

our hands. If anyone should sometime after this our life deny either that
those are of Faustus and these
mine, how can he be convinced, except because those who now know them
transmit their knowledge to

those also who will come long after by an unbroken succession? Since these
things are so, who will say

that the faithful church of the apostles and the agreement of so many
brethren could not have transmitted their writings faithfully to posterity?”

In Bk. 11, ch. 2, he says: “What origin, what age, what line of succession
will you quote as witness

for the book produced by you? You see in this matter what the authority of
the universal church can do,

which is confirmed by the most firmly founded seats of the apostles, by the
line of bishops who succeed

one another to this very day, and by the consensus of so many nations.” In
Bk. 32, ch. 21, he states: “If

you here now ask of us how we know that these are writings of the apostles,
we briefly answer you that

we know it in the same way that you also know that these are writings of
Manichaeus.”

In De civitate Dei, Bk. 15, ch. 23, Augustine writes: “Let us omit the fables
of those writings which are called apocrypha, because their obscure origin
did not become clear to the fathers, from whom the

authority of the true Scriptures has come down to us through the most
certain and well-known succession. But in these apocrypha, although some
truth is found in them, there is nevertheless no canonical authority on
account of the many false things in them. We cannot deny that Enoch wrote
some

divine things, since the apostle Jude asserts this in his canonical epistle; but
it is not without reason that they are not in the canon of the Scriptures
which was preserved in the temple of the Hebrew people by

the diligence of a succession of priests. Why was this so? It was judged that
they were not trustworthy

on account of their age and because it could not be found out whether these
were the things which he

had written; because they were not brought forward by men who were
found to have preserved them properly through a line of succession, prudent
men rightly judged that the things which were put forth

under his name ought not to be believed to be his, just as many writings are
put forth by heretics under

the name of other prophets also, and more recently under the name of
apostles, which have all after diligent examination been set apart from
canonical authority under the name of aprocrypha.”

In De consensu evangelistarum, Bk. 1, ch. 1, he writes: “The other writers

had either not been the kind of persons in their own time that the church
could have confidence in them and receive their

writings into the canonical authority of the sacred books, or they deceitfully
introduced certain things into their writings which the catholic and apostolic
rule of faith and sound doctrine condemns.”

The same author writes in Contra Faustum: “The Manichaeans read the
apocryphal writings, written,

I know not by what inventors of fables, under the name of apostles. These
would have merited during

the time of their writers to be received into the authority of holy church, if
holy and learned men who

were living at that time and were able to examine such things had
recognized them as having spoken the
truth.”

It is clear that Augustine does not ascribe to the church a power which
could give to some writings

canonical authority which they had neither from themselves nor from their
authors and which they did

not possess in the times when they were written, as the papalists contend. It
is a different matter with the authority of the Holy Spirit, at whose impulse
and inspiration the prophets, apostles, and the disciples of the apostles
wrote their sacred books, who confirmed their written doctrine with
miracles. A different

matter, too, is the witness of the church that these writings were either
written by prophets and apostles or approved and commended by them to
the church. And in this attestation it is also a different matter

with the church which existed during those times when these books were
first written and the church which followed after. For the later church only
preserves and transmits to posterity the witness of the

first church, but it neither should nor can decree anything concerning those
books for which it does not

have sure proofs from the witness of the first church.

17 Also Gerson, De vita spirituali, lect. 2, coroll. 7, argues that in this

matter the authority of the primitive church was greater than it is now. He
adds: “It is not in the power of the pope or of a council

or of the church to change the traditions given by the evangelists and by the
apostles, as some madmen

propose. Nor have they the same firm authority that they can make
something to be purely a matter of

faith.” He adds also this: “And here the way to understanding the statement
of Augustine is opened: ‘I
would not believe the Gospel, if the authority of the church had not
compelled me.’ For here he takes

the church to mean that primitive congregation of believers who have seen
Christ, have heard Him, and

have been His witnesses.”

18 The third question is: Which books are in the canon, and which are not
in the canon? as Jerome

says. We are not speaking now of the spurious, counterfeit, and false
writings, a list of which is found in Eusebius and in Distinction 15, in the
chapter beginning Sancta Romana. The question now is concerning those
books which are found together in the Vulgate edition of the Bible and
which are read

in the churches by the faithful. We are seeking the witness of the ancient
church concerning these, whether they are all equally certain and of equal
authority. However, it is very certain and clear that the witness of the
ancient church is that of these books some are in the canon, others are not in
the canon

but are apocrypha, as Jerome is accustomed to say, or (which is the same

thing) that some of these writings are genuine and have, without
contradiction, sure and harmonious testimonies for their authority from the
whole first and ancient church. Concerning some, however, there was doubt
because,

on account of the contradiction of some, they did not possess sufficiently

sure, firm, and harmonious testimonies of the first and ancient church
concerning their authority.

19 Of the writings of the Old Testament there are numbered among the
apocrypha, books not in the

canon: The Book of Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, the 3rd and 4th Books
of Ezra, Baruch, The Epistle
of Jeremiah, The Books of the Maccabees, minor portions in Esther and
Daniel.

20 The reason why these books were separated from canonical authority is
not a secret. Some of them were written after the time of the prophets, when
the people of Israel no longer had prophets such as the

old ones had been; and they were written by men who did not have divine
testimonies like the prophets

for the certainty and authority of their doctrine. Some of these books indeed
bear the names of prophets,

but they had no reliable witness that they had been written by those to
whom they were ascribed. This is

clearly the reason why they were removed from the canon of the Scripture.
Whoever therefore now

wants to make those books canonical must be able to prove that they were
certainly, without any doubt, written by prophets; and it is impossible to
prove this. Or it is necessary to establish that it does not affect the divinely
inspired Scripture whether it has divine testimonies of certainty, authority,
and truth or whether it has only human testimonies. Let the reader consider
whither a dictatorial canonization of

these books will finally lead.

21 Of the books of the New Testament which lacked sufficiently reliable,

firm, and harmonious testimonies of their certainty and authority in the first
and ancient church, these are listed:

Eusebius, Bk. 3, ch. 25, says: “The writings which are not considered to be
undoubted but which are

spoken against, although they were known to many, are these: The Epistle
of James, that of Jude, 2
Peter, and 2 and 3 John; the Apocalypse of John some reject, while others
number it with the certain and

undoubted writings.”

Jerome, in his catalog of the Scriptures, states: “The Epistle of James, it is

asserted, was published by

some other person under his name.”

Eusebius, Bk. 2, ch. 23, writes: “The epistle which is put down as the first
among the general epistles

is said to be by that James who was called the Just and Oblias. But we must
know that it was not judged

to be genuine and legitimate but spurious and counterfeit. Therefore not

many of the ancients make mention of it, as also of that of Jude; it is
rejected by most because it contains a testimony from the Book of Enoch,
which is an apocryphal book.”

Eusebius says in Bk. 3, ch. 3: “We have heard that the epistle which is
passed as the Second Epistle

of Peter is not genuine.”

Jerome writes in his catalog of the Scriptures: “It is denied by most that the
Second Epistle is Peter’s,

because its style disagrees with that of 1 Peter.”

Eusebius says in Bk. 3, ch. 25: “The other two epistles of John are spoken
against.” And he adds the

reason in ch. 25: “because,” he says, “there was doubt whether they were by
John, the evangelist, or by

someone else who had the same name.”

Eusebius writes in Bk. 3, ch. 3: “It must not be ignored that some in the
Roman church rejected the

Epistle to the Hebrews, asserting that it was spoken against as not being
Paul’s.”

In Bk. 6, ch. 25, he writes: “Origen, in setting down the catalog of the
canonical Scriptures of the Old

Testament, says that the Books of the Maccabees are outside this catalog.”
In the same place he says:

“Peter left one epistle which is firmly established. It may, however, be that
he also left a second one, for concerning this there is controversy.” Again:
“They say that the Second and Third of John are not wholly certain.” In the
same place he says concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews: “The diction
does not

have a ‘rudeness in speech’ like that of Paul, who confesses that he is

‘unskilled in speech.’ But anyone

who has discernment in matters of style will confess that the Epistle to the
Hebrews is ‘composed in a

style that is more Greek.’ Again, everyone who has diligently read the
apostolic writings will confess

that the thoughts of this epistle are by no means inferior to those of the
epistles which are undoubtedly

apostolic.” He concludes: “If therefore a church accepts this epistle as one

of Paul’s, it should be commended for this. For earlier men did not without
reason hand down the tradition that it is Paul’s.

However, who really wrote it only God knows. But the story has come
down to us that it was written

either by Clement or by Luke, so that the sense is Paul’s, but the language
and composition is that of
one who remembered the apostolic teachings and wrote comments on what
had been said by the

teacher.” Jerome writes on ch. 8 of Isaiah: “One can see that the Latin
church does not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews among the canonical
Scriptures.”

Eusebius, Bk. 3, ch. 24: “Concerning the Apocalypse, there is still a

difference of opinion with many,

some approving it, but others rejecting it.”

In Bk. 3, ch. 39, he says: “It is likely that another John who is counted
among the presbyters saw the

revelation which is circulated under the name of John, unless one assumes
that it was the first John, who

is named among the apostles.” In Bk. 5, ch. 8, he says that Irenaeus ascribed
it to the apostle John. So also Origen is quoted in Bk. 6, ch. 25.

22 I have quoted these testimonies of the ancients not only in order that a
catalog of those writings of the New Testament which do not have
sufficiently sure, firm, and harmonious testimonies of their authority may
be known, but chiefly that the reasons could be pointed out why there was
doubt concerning them: (1) because among the ancients there were not
found sufficiently sure, firm, and harmonious testimonies concerning the
attestation of the first apostolic church, that these books had been approved
by the apostles and commended to the church; (2) because it was not wholly
certain from

the witness of the first and ancient church whether these books had been
written by those under whose

name they were published, but they were judged to have been published by
others under the name of
apostles; (3) since some of the most ancient writers had ascribed some of
these books to apostles, others, however, had contradicted, this matter, even
as it was not indubitably certain, was left in doubt.

For this whole matter depends on sure, firm, and harmonious testimonies of
the first and ancient church,

and where these are lacking, the later church, as it cannot make genuine
books out of spurious ones, so

also it cannot make certain writings out of doubtful ones without clear and
firm proofs.

23 Against these clear testimonies of antiquity the Council of Trent, in the

fourth session, decrees: “If anyone does not accept these books whole, with
all their parts, as they are contained in the old Vulgate

Latin edition, as sacred and canonical, let him be anathema.” But how do
they prove and confirm this

decree of theirs against the testimonies of antiquity? Do they bring forward

any sure and clear proofs

from the attestations of the first apostolic and ancient church that these
controverted books have the same certainty and equal authority with the
others concerning which there never was any doubt? By no

means! Neither can they do this. But they snatch to themselves this power,
that the pope with his prelates can impart also to these and perhaps also to
other books the canonical authority which they deserve neither from
themselves nor from their authors and which they did not have at the time
of the

apostles and of the primitive church, as Pighius contends. Why then do they
not openly say what they

mean, namely, that although it cannot be proved that these books were
written or approved either by prophets or by apostles and that they were
certainly and constantly accepted by the first and ancient church, yes,
although the contrary may be proved more clearly than the light at noon by
the clearest testimonies of antiquity, in spite of this we nevertheless
establish and decree that this must surely be believed, even though no
proper proofs are brought forth by us for it because (if it please God) the
fullness of this anti-christian power is buried in the shrine of the papal
breast.

They pronounce the anathema on all who do not receive the apocryphal
books as having the same certainty and authority as the canonical.
Therefore the anathema will be on Eusebius, Jerome, Origen,

Melito, and on the whole apostolic and ancient church, out of whose
witness these things have been taken which we have quoted above
concerning these books.

I know that Nicephorus, a not very ancient writer, in Bk. 3, where he quotes
from Eusebius, the opinion of the primitive and ancient church concerning
the apocryphal books, adds that the church has

long ago received them as legitimate and canonical. But what reasons does
he adduce, what proofs, on

account of which one must depart from the witness of the primitive church?
To be sure, he adduces nothing! Hilary, in his foreword to the Psalms,
certainly does not treat this serious matter seriously enough. For he jokes
that because there are 22 canonical books of the Old Testament, according
to the

number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, therefore, because there are 24

Greek and Latin letters, two

books must be added to the canon, namely, Judith and Tobit, that the
number may correspond to the letters. But in so grave and serious a matter
there must be no such frivolous playing.

24 Therefore this whole dispute revolves around this question, whether it is

certain and beyond doubt that those books on which this controversy turns
were either published or approved as divinely inspired

Scripture by prophets and apostles who possessed this authority from God.

All antiquity answers that it is not certain but that it was doubted because of
the contradictions of many. Tridentine arrogance however threatens
anathema if anyone does not receive them as of equal, yes, as of the same
certainty and authority as the other books, about which there never was any
doubt.

Why should we be surprised, therefore, that some papalist parasites assert

that the pope can establish new articles of faith, since in this place he is not
afraid to fabricate a new canonical Scripture? As a result there can no
longer be any doubt who it is, who, sitting in the temple of God, is exalted
above all that is called God. (2 Thess. 2:4)

25 Should then these books be simply rejected and condemned? We by no

means seek this. Of what

use then is this dispute? I reply: That the rule of faith or of sound doctrine
in the church may be sure.

For the ancients judged that the authority of confirming the dogmas of the
church comes from the canonical books alone, as the testimonies cited
above show. The authority of the canonical Scripture alone was judged to
be able to establish that which comes into dispute; but the other books,
which Cyprian called ecclesiastical and Jerome apocryphal, they indeed
wanted to have read in the churches

for the edification of the common people, but not as authority for the
confirmation of the dogmas of the

churches. For they did not want them to be brought forward to confirm the
authority of the faith from

them. And their authority was judged to be inadequate to establish matters

which come into controversy.
No dogma ought therefore to be drawn out of these books which does not
have reliable and clear foundations and testimonies in other canonical
books. Nothing controversial can be proved out of these

books, unless there are other proofs and confirmations in the canonical
books. But what is said in these

books must be explained and understood according to the analogy of those

things which are clearly taught in the canonical books. There is no doubt
that this is the opinion of antiquity.

But the Council of Trent weakens, overthrows, and annuls this necessary
and most true distinction of

the ancient church, because (as my friend Andrada says) they do not want
to bring themselves into this

narrow pass that, deprived of all other aids, they derive the faith solely from
the canonical Scripture.

For, says the Synod of Trent, it makes canonical books out of apocryphal
books in order to show what

testimonies and proofs it will chiefly use for the confirmation of dogmas
and the restoration of morals.

26 Why do such men pretend to honor the judgments of antiquity, when

they overthrow the opinion

of the first and ancient church concerning the canon of faith and dogmas
from its very foundations? Let

the reader diligently consider how much harm the neglect and annulment of
that most ancient

distinction between the canonical books and the apocryphal and spurious, or
false, books has brought into the church. For first they began gradually to
add the other books, which are called apocrypha by Jerome, to the authority
of the canonical books. Later they began to cite many things from the
spurious

and rejected writings as if from traditions, as we shall show when we treat

the topic of traditions.

Thirdly, a beginning was made about the time of Gregory to say that the
councils were to be accepted

and venerated like the gospels. Fourthly, a note in Distinction 15, in the
chapter beginning Nol. , says:

“Augustine speaks after the manner of those times when the writings of the
fathers were not yet considered authentic, but today all things are
commanded to be held, down to the last iota.” Fifthly, there is added also
this impudence, that they have not been afraid to falsify most shamelessly
Augustine’s statement in De doctrina Christiana, Bk. 2, ch. 8. For they read
and interpret it as follows in Distinction 19, in the chapter beginning In
Canonicis: “Among the canonical writings those are to be preferred which
the Apostolic See (that is, the Roman) has, and from it others were entitled
to receive

epistles.” Here the decretal letters of the Roman pontiffs are not only placed
on a level with the canonical Scripture but actually placed above it, and that
through the most manifest crime of falsification. For Augustine does not
say this. But why are we surprised at this, when they arrogate to

themselves this freedom, that they can canonize books which were not held
as such at the time of the

apostles and of the primitive church? Finally: Because it might appear to

our era to be too crude if these things, namely, the councils, fathers, and
decrees of the popes, are made equal to the Gospel, a new

stratagem has now been invented, that whatever the papal church believes
and observes must be called, and believed to be, apostolic tradition,
although it cannot be proved by any testimony of Scripture. And
these are the truly “guileless” proof passages of the papalists, from which
they can prove anything they

like without trouble.

27 I have run through these materials in order that it may be understood

what the papalists are seeking by this their confusion, and how altogether
necessary it is to fight for that ancient distinction of the books of Scripture.
But they have two objections which they can with some show bring up
against

this proposition which we are defending. One is from Jerome, who says that
these books had, in the course of time, obtained authority and were counted
among the sacred Scriptures. The other is from Augustine, who calls these
books canonical. We shall speak first of Augustine. When he tells, in De
doctrina Christiana, Bk. 2, ch. 8, in which books the canon of Scripture is
contained, he adds also those books of which we have until now said that
they are outside the canon, or apocryphal. The Third Council of Carthage
follows this opinion of Augustine. On account of the authority of
Augustine, they

can assert this with a certain show against what I have so far stated. But the
answer is not difficult. In the first place, I could ask: Since all antiquity is of
a different opinion, should not the opinion of all antiquity be received and
followed rather than the opinion of one man, Augustine, since it is not
unknown what liberty Augustine grants to the reader in his writings?
Therefore without prejudice to the

honor of Augustine, and with his blessing, we could refuse to prefer the
opinion of one man to the constant judgment of more, and more ancient,
men. But we shall not use this answer now. For I see that

Augustine, although he uses other words, nevertheless thinks and says the
same thing about the matter

itself as we have so far shown from the testimonies of the ancients. For
Augustine does not understand
the term apocrypha as Jerome does, namely, as applying to Judith, Tobias,
etc.; but he applies the name

apocrypha to spurious, false, and rejected writings. Thus in De civitate Dei,

Bk. 15, ch. 23, he speaks of fables in the writings which are called
apocrypha, which have no canonical authority because of the many false
things in them. And Contra Faustum he says: “The apocrypha were written
by fabricators of fables under the name of apostles.” Augustine therefore
distinguishes not three classes of writings, as do Eusebius and Jerome, but
only two, namely, by the words apocryphal and canonical. (1) He calls the
first class apocryphal, that is, fable-filled, spurious, and false writings. (2)
Those which were read in the churches he calls by one word, canonical. But
I ask whether Augustine affirms the same certainty and

equal authority of all those books which he designates by the one word
canonical? For this is the point

that is in dispute. Now I find that Augustine expressly teaches and explains
this distinction, that some of these books were accepted by all Catholic
churches, others, however, were not accepted by all but only

by certain ones. And he adds that those Scriptures which are accepted by all
churches should be placed

above those which some did not accept. And among these again those
which are accepted by more, and

by more venerable, churches are to be placed above those which fewer

churches, and churches of lesser

authority, hold. Like all of antiqutiy, therefore, also Augustine distinguishes

among the Biblical books;

and with respect to their authority and certainty he says that some are to be
placed above others; that is, that they are not all of equal authority and
certainty, because some are accepted by all churches, some
not by all. And this is what also we say with all of antiquity. Elsewhere
Augustine calls the books of the Maccabees canonical. But the controversy
is not chiefly about the term but about the matter itself, namely, whether
Augustine ascribes to the books of the Maccabees equal, yes, the very same,
authority

possessed by the other books which are, strictly speaking, canonical. But I
read what Augustine says,

Contra Gaudentii epistolam, Bk. 2, ch. 23. Though he twists the example of
Razis, who committed suicide, now this way, now that way, nevertheless he
neither dares nor is he able to defend it and approve of it. And finally he
says: “This Scripture, which is called Maccabees, the Jews do not regard

like the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms, to which the Lord gives
testimony as His witnesses in

Luke 24. But it is received by the church not without profit, if it is soberly
read or heard.”

28 Augustine certainly does not speak this way about the truly canonical
books. There is still another passage in Augustine from which it can be seen
even more clearly that in Augustine’s time the authority

of these books concerning which there is controversy was not equal to that
of the other truly canonical

books. For, in De praedestinatione sanctorum, Bk. 1, ch. 14, St. Augustine

says that he had used a passage from the Book of Wisdom (4:11): “He was
taken away lest malice should pervert his

understanding.” He adds: “You have told me that these brethren rejected the
testimony offered by me,

on the plea that it is not taken from a canonical book.” What does
Augustine do then? He does not defend that book as being truly canonical,
but says, “as if, without the witness of this book, the matter
were not clear which we want to teach from it.” And after quoting a
statement from Ezekiel he declares:

“This is the whole reason why it was said by whomsoever it was said: ‘He
was taken away lest malice

should pervert his understanding.’” Again: “No matter who said this, what
person of sound faith will think that it should be resisted?” Therefore it is
clear that Augustine has the same understanding about

the distinction of the sacred books as Jerome, who says: “The church reads
these for the edification of

the people, not to confirm the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas.” It is

therefore clear that Augustine approves, retains, and preserves the
distinction of the ancients of which we spoke above, namely, that

the certainty and authority of all the books of Scripture which are contained
in the common Latin edition is not the same or equal. And now any reader
understands that the papalists falsely and in vain

appeal to the authority of Augustine for their opinion, by which they make
all books equal … with respect to certainty and authority. But you say:
“Why does Augustine count these books with the others

and call them canonical?” I reply: “Augustine maintains only this, that
those books, which Jerome called apocryphal, although they are not of the
same certainty and authority as the other undoubted books of Scripture,
were nevertheless not rejected outright and condemned, like the spurious
and false

writings, but were received into the number of the Holy Scripture, yet under
this rule and condition, as

has been stated above from Jerome and Cyprian. This also we gladly
concede and teach.
29 The other objection is from Jerome, who says: “The Epistle of James
gained authority gradually,

in the course of time.” And of the Epistle of Jude he says: “Through age
and use it has now merited authority and is counted among the sacred
writings.” He says also that the Synod of Nicaea counted the

Book of Judith in the number of the sacred Scriptures. But because the
opinion of Jerome is clear and

without ambiguity, the answer is easy. For Jerome there is indeed a

distinction between these two things: “To be counted among the
Scriptures,” and “to be received among the canonical Scriptures.” For

of Judith he says in the preface that it is counted in the number of sacred

Scriptures. But in the preface to the books of Solomon he says: “Judith,
Tobit, and the books of the Maccabees the church indeed reads, but she
does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures.” And Jerome
himself clearly explains how he wants this to be understood when he says:
“The church reads these for the edification

of the people, not for the confirmation of the authority of ecclesiastical

dogmas.” Also: “Their authority is judged to be unfit to establish matters
about which there is controversy.” Therefore also according to

Augustine and Jerome the opinion of antiquity remains fixed and firm.

30 So also Eusebius says, Bk. 2, ch. 23, concerning the Epistles of James
and Jude: “We know that

also these are “publicly” read in very many churches together with the
others.” But from this it does not

follow that canonical authority was ascribed to them. For Eusebius employs
the same word concerning

the Shepherd of Hernias, Bk. 3, ch. 3.

31 So far, therefore, as the matter itself is concerned, Augustine thinks and
says the same thing about the books of Scripture as the other ancient writers
before him, except that he does not use the same terms and style. For he
takes the word canonical in a wider sense than Jerome. Also he understands
the

word apocrypha differently than Jerome. And out of the threefold division
of Eusebius, namely, that some books are authentic, some are books
concerning which doubt was expressed, and some are

spurious and false, Augustine made a twofold division, that some books are
canonical, others

apocryphal. Yet those which he calls canonical he again clearly

distinguishes, namely, that some were accepted by all churches, others not
by all. The latter he wants read with discernment. If the papalists

would think in this way about these matters, we would not have a serious
fight about the words and expressions. But they want all books which are
found in the common Latin version of the Bible to have

completely equal authority for confirming dogmas and for establishing

those matters about which there

is controversy. It is against this that we fight and say that it conflicts with
the judgment of all antiquity.

32 But once the matters themselves have been established, one must not
rashly fight about words or

terms; nevertheless, it is profitable to have the most appropriate terms

which designate and explain the

subject matter clearly and unambiguously. Jerome calls the books canonical
which are authentic and undoubted; but those concerning which there was
doubt, he calls apocrypha. Augustine calls both kinds
with the one word canonical. Jerome designates as apocrypha both those
concerning which there was doubt and the spurious and false. Thus he says
in his foreword to Galatians: “That we may be able to

know what is to be placed outside, that is, among the apocrypha, such as
Sirach, Judith, Tobit, etc.” And

in his preface to the Gospels he says: “The funeral dirges of the apocrypha
should rather be sung for dead heretics than for living church members.”
Augustine, however, understands by apocrypha only the

spurious and false writings.

33 Therefore the use of these terms is manifold and diverse; but if the
question is about the appropriateness, the decision is easy. For the very
emphasis and peculiarity of the term indicates that those books are not
properly called canonical which are indeed read in the churches, but not to
confirm

the authority of the faith from them, and whose authority is not judged to be
appropriate for establishing those things about which controversy has
arisen. For the term applies properly to those books which are

the canon for dogmas and faith. Apocrypha those books are properly called
whose hidden origin did not

become clear to those by whose testimony the authority of the true

Scriptures has come down to us, as

Augustine says in De Civitate Dei, Bk 15, ch. 23. And in Contra Faustum,
Bk. 11, ch. 2, he says, that those are called apocrypha which have been
declared and brought forward by no light of witness. This

explanation of the term rightly fits those books which are indeed found in
the common editions but are

not in the canon, as Jerome says, because it was not certain from
sufficiently reliable testimonies whether they had been either published or
approved by prophets or apostles. Whether for the third class

of writings, which are spurious or false, either this or some other expression
should be employed, is a

question about which I do not fight, so long as the necessary distinction of

the matters themselves is retained and set forth.

34 Eusebius has very meaningful expressions. Those writings which Jerome

terms canonical Eusebius calls … genuine, true, legitimate, testamentary,
catholic, certain without contradiction and doubt, confessed by all.

Those indeed which are read in the churches but are nevertheless not in the
canon, as Jerome says,

Eusebius calls books concerning which there was doubt, or which were
spoken against. He also calls them not authentic, not testamentary, etc. The
rest he calls spurious, senseless, and wicked.

18 The text in Chemnitz is inaccurate here. Where we have translated

“disciples,” he has “apostles.”

Because this does not yield an acceptable sense, the passage was checked in
Tertullian. Tertullian actually has discipulorum, which distinguishes
disciples and apostolic men like Mark and Luke from the apostles
themselves. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, Bk. IV, ch. 2, in Migne,
Patrologia Latina, II, 363.

SECTION VII

Concerning the Version, or Translation, of Scripture into Other

Languages

The Second Decree of the Council of Trent in the Fourth Session

In addition, the same holy synod, considering that no small benefit may
come to the church of God if
it became known which of the many Latin editions of the sacred books in
circulation is to be considered

authentic, ordains and declares that the same ancient Vulgate edition, which
has been approved in this

church by the long use of so many centuries, is to be considered authentic in

public readings, disputations, sermons, or expositions, and that no one
should dare or presume to reject it under any pretext whatsoever.

Examination

1 In this second decree of the fourth session concerning the versions, or

translations, of the sacred books, two things must be noted: (1) Because
they dispute only concerning the Latin editions, they condemn indirectly, as
elsewhere they do openly, the translation of the Scripture into other native
and

popular languages; (2) they make only the old and common Latin edition
authentic so that no one may

dare or presume under any pretext whatever to reject it in sermons,

readings, disputations, or expositions. These things are to be examined.

2 A right judgment is not difficult if the origin of the versions is considered.

God first made known the heavenly doctrine in the Hebrew tongue. For
before the Flood this was the one and only language of

the whole human race, and He provided that afterward His doctrine should
be written down in the letters of this language, because the Hebrew
language is the womb of all other languages, as Jerome says commenting
on Zephaniah 3:14 ff. And although there occurred later the confusion of
languages,

Gen. 11:6–9, it seems that there was yet in those first times such a similarity
or affinity between them
that Abraham could speak with and understand others without an interpreter
in Chaldaea, Egypt, and Canaan. And in Gen. 31:47, Laban calls the “heap
of witness” in his mother tongue by one name, Jacob

by another, yet each understands the other. And the daughters of Laban
gave their sons Hebrew names

while they were yet in Syria. Thus Joseph, in Gen. 42:23, speaks with his
brethren through an interpreter; but that a close kinship still existed with the
Hebrew tongue the name Aberek, 19 which Pharaoh gave to Joseph, shows.
The name Moses, which the daughter of Pharaoh gave him, shows the

same thing, because she gave the reason for calling him by this name. The
friends of Job come from different regions and argue in Hebrew with Job.
In Deut. 28:49, where he [Moses] threatens that enemies will come from the
remotest regions, he says: “Whose language you will not be able to
understand.” Therefore at that time, owing to the affinity of the languages,
the things which God transmitted and caused to be written in the Hebrew
tongue could be read and understood by others also.

For God did not give the Scripture in such a way that, as with the
prophecies of the Sibyl, the possibility of reading it should be open to
nobody or to very few. It was for this very reason, that the

reading of the Scripture might be possible also for men of other languages,
that versions, or translations, later arose. For when in the course of time the
affinity, which had till then existed between the other

languages and the Hebrew, had been destroyed, so that Hebrew was no
longer understood by others, the Holy Scripture finally began to be
translated into other languages which were then in use and more widely
known than others.

This was done in order that those books which embrace the salvation of all
could be read and understood not only by those who knew Hebrew but also
by others. Thus Daniel and Ezra began to write down some things in the
Chaldaic dialect. Later the whole Scripture of the Old Testament was
translated into the Syriac, or Chaldaic, language. For that language was
widely known at that time in many countries and nations. Thus the
Scripture of the Old Testament was translated into Greek when this
language had begun to be used and known in many countries and nations on
account of the Greek

monarchy. Christ used the words of Scripture in the Syriac dialect on the
cross. The apostles made very

much use of the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Therefore the
custom of translating the sacred

books into other native and popular languages was approved by the Son of
God Himself and by the apostles. Indeed, God did not so set apart only one
certain language for the Holy Scripture that it is a sin to translate it into
other native and popular languages, so that whatever of the heavenly
doctrine God wanted written down in either Hebrew or Greek could be read
and understood by all. For God wants all

men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Thus the
eunuch of the queen of Ethiopia in

Acts 8 read the prophet Isaiah not in the Hebrew language but in the Greek
translation. Therefore God

wants the Holy Scripture to be read and understood also by men of other
languages, and that this might

be possible, translations were made into those languages which were then
most widely used not only among the learned but also among others; and of
this kind were the Syriac and the Greek languages.

This is acknowledged also by Augustine in De doctrina Christiana, Bk. 2,

ch. 6, for he says:

“Through this it has come about that also the divine Scripture, through
which help is given in such great
sicknesses of human inclinations, after it had begun in one language which
could readily be spread through the world, it was spread far and wide
through the various languages of the translators and became known to the
nations for salvation. When they read it, they desire nothing else than to
find the

meaning and intention of those by whom it was written, and through these
means the will of God in accord with which we believe such men have
spoken.”

3 However, the New Testament, as we commonly call it now, was begun

through the sending of the

Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost and was, so to say, dedicated to the
languages of different nations,

and later of all nations, for whom that salvation was intended. For as by the
confusion of tongues the

purity of the divinely revealed doctrine had been lost and corrupted, so the
Holy Spirit, through the diversity of all languages, again gathered the
nations to the unity of faith through the apostles. For He

gave the gift of languages for this, that the doctrine of the New Testament
could be delivered and preached not only to certain nations in one language
or the other but to all nations which are under heaven in that language
which they could understand. God indeed wanted the Scripture of the New
Testament to be written in Greek, because its use was then very widespread,
as can be gathered from Cicero’s oration in behalf of Archias. For he says:
“If anyone thinks that a less glorious benefit is received from Greek verses
than from Latin, he errs greatly, because Greek literature is read among
almost all nations, while Latin is contained in its own limited confines.”

4 In the East, where the Greek language long remained the native langauge
of the people, the fathers spoke Greek in the churches, and the people read
the Holy Scripture in the Greek language. Chrysostom
very often admonishes the laity to read the Holy Scripture, which could
easily be done because the Greek language was at that time still the native
language of the people.

5 But in the West, where together with the Roman rule the use also of the
Latin language became widespread among the people, a beginning was
made of translations of the Holy Scripture into the Latin

language. Augustine says in De doctrina Christiana, Bk. 2, ch. 11: “Those

who have translated the Scriptures from the Hebrew into Greek can be
counted, but the Latin translators cannot. For when,

during the first times of the faith, a Greek manuscript came into anyone’s
hands and he thought that he had some ability in both languages, he dared
to translate, etc.” Thus Augustine spoke Latin in his church, and the people
read the Scripture in Latin and sang the Psalms in Latin, for they were
people of

Latin tongue.

6 Therefore translations of the Holy Scripture were always made into those
languages which were used by the people and were most widespread, not
only among the learned but also among others.

7 Now that the use of the Latin language has ceased to be common and
popular, the question is whether it is permitted to translate the Holy
Scripture from its sources into those languages which are

now widely used in our areas. This undertaking the papalists not only
condemn, but they persecute it with fire and sword as they fight only for the
Latin version. But what is to be thought of this barbarous

tyranny is clear from what we have said. For where has God revealed that
the dignity of the Latin language is so great that the Holy Scripture should
be read only in it? The dignity of the Hebrew and

Greek languages, in which the sacred books were originally written, would
certainly be greater. Why,
then, do they not rather contend that the Holy Scripture should be read only
in these languages? But perhaps this is done because the greater part of
them says with Accursius:20 “They are Greek; they cannot be read.” God
certainly does not want His doctrine to be known only to Latin people. If,
therefore, the command of God is to transmit and proclaim the doctrine of
the New Testament to the peoples of all languages so that they can
understand, this certainly cannot be done unless the doctrine of the
Scripture is in the proclamation translated into those languages which are
known to the peoples to

whom Christ is to be preached. … For the doctrine of the Gospel must be

preached from the Scripture.

But in preaching one must not use a language which is unknown to those to
whom one is preaching, as

we learn in 1 Cor. 14:19. Therefore the words and meaning of Scripture

must be translated into the languages which are known and familiar to those
to whom we preach. But what difference does it make

whether the rendering, or translation, is done by word of mouth or by

writing? For if it is really altogether a sin to translate the Scripture into
vernacular languages, it follows that the Gospel also cannot be taught or
transmitted from the Scripture in the language of the common people.

8 However, it had slipped my mind that the faith of the papalists stands
outside of and beyond the Scripture; therefore they are able to teach without
a translation of Scripture into vernacular languages.

But let us get at the real issue. Although they do not object when some
statements of Scripture are translated into vernacular languages in teaching,
they do condemn this, if the whole Scripture is thus translated in a written
version. But why is this, unless they want to reserve to themselves the
liberty that they can set before the people whatever they please and as much
as they please and that the people must

of necessity believe it without any right to judge? They see, however, that
this freedom will not remain
unchallenged if the people themselves are able to read the Scripture in a
language they know and understand. That is … what they are crying about.

9 That they pretend fear that the majesty of the Scripture may be tarnished
if it is translated into uncultured languages is folly. For where is the sanctity
of the Latin language? (I am not now speaking

of elegance.)

Certainly the majesty of the heavenly doctrine was not violated when on
Pentecost it was transmitted

and set forth in various uncultured languages. Therefore it will also not be
tarnished by translation into any language, no matter how uncultured it is
held to be, if the rendering is true and sound. For the languages of all
nations have been sanctified by the Holy Spirit that they may sound forth
the wonderful

works of God, as we read in Acts 2:11; Rom. 14:11; Is. 66:16–20. Thus
Jerome somewhere testifies that

he had translated the Scripture into the Dalmatian language.

10 Therefore it is truly tyranny of Antichrist to kill innocent people only

because of translations of the Scripture into native languages. I am not
speaking of versions that are corrupted and do not agree

with the sources.

11 The other chief point of this decree is concerning the old and common
Latin edition, which we certainly do not reject or condemn outright (for it
must be given its due, whoever may have been the old

translator, for much of the translation is not bad). And it is profitable that
there should be some reliable version which may be used to quote from,
however, in such a way that the emphasis of the words and

the appropriateness of the meaning is judged from the sources themselves,

to which one must by all means go back if the translator appears to have
rendered something incorrectly, or not adequately and

appropriately. In this manner we retain and use the version of the ancients.
And if the formulators of the Tridentine decrees intended only this with
respect to the old version, there would be no disagreement between us. But,
not content with this, they insist that this Vulgate version as it has been used
in their church shall be considered authentic in public readings,
disputations, sermons, or explanations, so that

no one may dare to reject it under any pretext whatever. But what if that
common edition has not rendered what is in the sources, whether it be
Hebrew or Greek, correctly, suitably, and adequately?

What if through the ignorance or carelessness of copyists some things were

altered, mutilated, or added?

Will one be permitted then to depart from the old version and go back to the
sources? Will one be allowed to prefer the fountainheads to the brooks?
And if some things in that old version were rendered

badly, changed, mutilated, and added, so that they disagree with the
sources, will one be permitted, if

someone should push them too offensively, to reject them? The Tridentine
fathers reply: “Let no one dare or presume to reject the common edition
under any pretext whatsoever.” Truly, this must not be tolerated in the
church, that in place of the things which the Holy Spirit wrote in the
Hebrew and Greek

sources something should be foisted onto us as authentic which has been

badly rendered by the translator or altered or mutilated and added by
copyists, and that in such a way that one may not reject

them even after he has examined the sources.

12 “The Greek translators,” says Augustine, “can be counted, but the Latin
by no means.” If, therefore, there is debate about the antiquity of the Latin
version, that certainly which is now the common one will not be the oldest;
for it is attributed to Jerome as far as the books of the Old Testament are
concerned. And yet Jerome himself, in matters of the Hebrew, renders and
interprets many things differently than we now read in the Vulgate edition.
We have Jerome’s version of the Psalter and of Ecclesiastes; but in the
Vulgate we have far other versions of these books. Jerome confesses that he
had

emended the four Evangelists by a comparison of the Greek codices, and

yet when he translates Matthew, he criticizes certain things in the Vulgate,
as he also does in the Epistles of Paul. And what do we suppose happened
to the Vulgate edition after the times of Jerome through the carelessness of
sleepy

copyists, when the study of languages lay buried?

13 Certainly it cannot be denied that in the Vulgate edition of the Psalter in

very many places the genuine meaning of the Psalms is not given correctly,
suitably, and properly, but often a strange meaning has been foisted on
them. This is so clear that even Lindanus acknowledges it. And I do not

think that Andrada, who often shows off his knowledge of the Hebrew
language more than is called for,

will deny this.

In Sirach many whole sentences have been added, which are plainly not in
the Greek; some have been shifted from one place to another.

In Gen. 9:6 the sentence has been mutilated: “Whoever shall shed human
blood, his blood shall be

shed.” For the words “by man” have been omitted. In Matt. 9:13 a very
beautiful sentence has been mutilated: “I have not come to call the just, but
sinners.” Here the words “to repentance” have been omitted. 21

In Rom. 1:32, the statement at the end is clearly mutilated.

In 1 John 5:13, the apostle had written thus: “This I write to you who
believe in the name of the Son

of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may
believe in the name of the Son

of God.” The Vulgate however reads: “This I write to you that you may
know that you have eternal life,

who believe in the name of the Son of God.”

In Rom. 4:2, where Paul says that Abraham was not justified by works, the
addition is made “of the

Law,” in order that they may be able to philosophize about ceremonies.

In Rom. 11:6, the following statement has clearly been omitted or

expunged: “If by works, then it is

no more by grace, otherwise works would no longer be works.”

How many things unlearned copyists have corrupted, which are now read in
the temples of the papalists as authentic without understanding! Thus in
Joel 2:13 they have “excellent above malice” for

“repents of evil.”

In Ezra 9:8 they have put instead of paxillus (“peg,” “nail”) pax illius (“his
peace”), and for sepem (“wall,” “fence”) spem (“hope”).

In Judges 11:2, out of altera matre (“another mother”) they have made
adultera matre (“an adulterous mother”); in Ps. 132:15, out of victum
(“bread,” “food”), viduam (“widow”).

In 1 Sam. 19:24, for cecidit (“he fell”) they read cecinit (“he sang,” or “he
prophesied”); likewise out of lapides sacculi (“stones of the bag”) they have
made lapides seculi (“stones of the age”).
What need is there of many words in a clear matter? Many such passages
have been noted in pertinent writings by Valla, Stapulensis, Erasmus, etc.

14 And yet so great is the impudence of the papalist synod that they are not
afraid to state without any exception that the Vulgate is not to be rejected
under any pretext whatever, even if, for instance, some things have been
translated incorrectly, some altered, mutilated, and added to, so that they do
not

agree with the sources. Thus we will accept the errors of the translator, the
mistakes of the copyists, the additions and mutilations of men as the Word
of God, and we shall not be free to believe the pure fountainheads
themselves more than the muddy and impure brooks.

15 Augustine definitely says in De doctrina Christiana, Bk. 2, ch. 11:

“People of the Latin tongue need two wings for an understanding of the
divine Scriptures, one Hebrew and the other Greek, in order

that they may have recourse to the original models if the infinite variety of
the Latin translators has caused some doubt.” In ch. 12 he says: “Which
translator has followed the truth is uncertain unless the

texts of the original language are read.” In ch. 15 he writes: “With respect to
the books of the New Testament there is no doubt that we ought to believe
the Greek text when anything is amiss in the manifold Latin versions.” In
Letter No. 59 he writes: “The terms must be distinguished according to the

Greek way of speaking. For it is hard to find any among our translators who
were careful to translate

diligently and skillfully.”

In De sermone Domini in monte, Bk. 1, he confesses that we must give the

Greek texts more credence than the Latin.

In Contra Faustum, Bk. 11, ch. 2 he says: “One must resort to the truer
models, either of more manuscripts or of more ancient ones or of the
original language from which this was translated into another language.”
In De vera religione he says: “The speech of the divine Scriptures must be
accepted according to the peculiarity of each language.”

And in Decreta, Distinction 9, this statement of Augustine is quoted: “As

the trustworthiness of the old books must be examined from the Hebrew
manuscripts, so the integrity of the new calls for the norm of Greek
speech.”

16 Thus the apostles used and quoted the then common edition of the
Septuagint, because it was at

that time in everybody’s hands; but they did not make it authentic against
the sources themselves but derived the emphasis and peculiarity of meaning
from the sources themselves, if the translators had departed from them in
any place, as Jerome shows by many examples. This is the true and
apostolic way of using the versions. This should be diligently noted.

17 But the papalists care neither for the apostles, nor for the fathers, nor for
their own decrees, if only

they can in some way retain and preserve the state of their rule. Thus Paul
IV entered the version of Erasmus, which Leo X had approved, in the
catalog of condemned books. And it is worthy of

consideration that in that catalog all editions of the Bible, also that of the
ancient translator, in which only some of the most manifest errors of the
Vulgate were emended, are condemned. From this it should

be clear what the men of Trent seek by this decree of theirs.

18 However, it is not without reason that they fight so violently and

stubbornly … for the errors of the Vulgate edition. For in many passages it
has been changed in favor of the papal dogmas. … And as

the poor hot-shot from Ingelstadt, Alber, says: “In the ancient letter of the
Vulgate edition there lie hidden many mysteries of the faith,” namely, of the
papalist faith, as the intercession and protection of

Mary can be proved from the corruption of Gen. 3:15: “She shall bruise the
head of the serpent.” This

falsification also the doctors of Cologne were not ashamed to ascribe to

Josephus in a public edition, misusing the corrupted translation of Rufinus,
although Josephus has no such thing in the Greek language. And although
the Hebrew, the Chaldaean, the Greek, and all of antiquity read and
interpret this text of the Seed Himself, the Babylonian Thais22 has
nevertheless put on such a shameless front, that her lovers are not ashamed
of this crude impudence even in the brightest daylight.

The sacrifice of the Mass they prove from this, that the old translation has
(Gen. 14:18):

“Melchisedek sacrificed bread and wine, for he was a priest,” although the
Hebrew has neither the word

“sacrifice” nor the causal conjunction.

They are able to mitigate original sin from the passage where God says:
“The imagination of the heart

is only evil.” There the old version has: “The thinking of the human heart is
intent upon or prone to evil.” The invocation of the saints they prove from
this, that in Job 5:1 the Vulgate has: “Call, if there is one who will answer
you, and turn to one of the saints,” and in Ps. 150:1: “Praise the Lord in the
saints.”

That faith in the remission of sins is to be doubted they can prove because
in Ecclus. 5:5 the text has

been corrupted to read: “Concerning propitiated sin be not without fear,”

and in Eccl. 9:1: “Man does

not know whether he is worthy of love or of hate.”

That all things which they decree in their councils are to be accepted as
oracles of the Holy Spirit they can prove from the corrupted text in the
Vulgate, John 14:26: “The Holy Spirit will suggest to you

all things whatever I shall say to you.” But the Greek has: “Whatever I have
said to you,” not “shall say.”

The perfection of good works in this life Staphylus proves from the
corrupted text in the old edition,

Eph. 6:13: “That you may be able to stand perfect in all things.”

That marriage is one of the seven sacraments is proved from the fact that
the old translator rendered

Eph. 5:32 “sacrament” instead of “mystery.” The efficacy of extreme

unction is proved from this that in

James 5:15 the Vulgate has the word “alleviate,” which they interpret of
specters and attacks of Satan,

although James has the word “raise up.”

That eternal life is merited they prove by this, that in Ecclus. 16:15 and
Hebrews 13:16 the translator

has added the word “merit,” which is not in the text, as he also says in Gen.
14: “That I may merit pardon.” When my friend Andrada wants to prove
that neither vestiges nor remnants of sin remain in

the baptized, he quotes Heb. 9:28: “Christ was once offered to empty out
the sins of many.” And he adds: “When it has been emptied out, nothing is
left,” although he is not ignorant of the fact that such a word is not found in
the Greek. When Gropper wanted to prove in 1541 at Regensburg that the
papistical satisfaction had been instituted by the apostle Paul, he cited the
fact that Erasmus, in the description of the repentance of the Corinthians in
2 Cor. 7:11, had translated the word
with

“satisfaction.”

The reader should note particularly that, in order to prove that the church
has the power to dispense

with essential parts of the sacraments contrary to the institution of Christ,

the Council of Trent abuses

the ambiguity of the old version, where in 1 Cor. 4:1, the ministers of Christ
are called “dispensers of

the mysteries of God.” Therefore, the argument goes, they can dispense in
the sacraments and withhold

one form in the Supper; for they are dispensers. Good God, how great is the
impudence of Antichrist to

play in such a childish manner in so serious a matter in spite of the great

light of knowledge in the area of the languages, although Paul calls the
ministers of Christ only

(“stewards”).

What do you think now, reader? Certainly the Council of Trent has its own
reasons for making the

common Latin edition of the Bible authentic in the manner shown above.

19 Chemnitz here seems to be on less than solid ground, since “Aberek” is

really not a name applied to Joseph, but a command to the people.
Chemnitz assumes that it is a Hebrew word, while Gesenius

tries to find an Egyptian derivation.

20 This is probably a reference to a man who, according to Brockhaus,
Grosses Konversationslexikon, became proverbial as a writer of bad
glosses.

21 Here, as in a number of other places, the Vulgate seems to be following

better manuscripts than the Byzantine manuscripts available to Chemnitz.

22 The reference is to Rev. 17:1 ff.

SECTION VIII

Concerning the Interpretation of the Scripture

Another Canon of the Second Decree of the Fourth Session of the Council

Furthermore, in order to restrain willful spirits, the synod decrees that no

one, relying on his own wisdom in matters of faith and morals that pertain
to the upbuilding of the Christian doctrine, may twist

the Holy Scripture according to his own opinions or presume to interpret

Holy Scripture contrary to that

sense which holy mother Church has held and holds, whose right it is to
judge concerning the true sense

and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or contrary to the unanimous

consensus of the fathers, even

though such interpretations should at no time be intended for publication.

Those acting contrary to this

shall be reported by their ordinaries and be punished with the penalties

appointed by law.

Examination

1 According to a saying of Hilary, you do not have the Scriptures by merely

reading, but by understanding them. It is therefore certain that the teaching
of the Scripture and its salutary use does not consist in words which are not
understood, but in its true meaning and sound understanding, as the parable
in Matt. 13:23 says: “He who hears and understands the Word of God and
brings forth fruit, he

is sown in the good ground.” Many passages in Scripture are indeed set
forth in plain and clear words

which require no farfetched interpretation but explain themselves; to these,

to use Augustine’s words, the door is open both for the learned and the
unlearned. And in these passages which are stated clearly

and plainly in the Scripture all those things are found which define the faith
and morals for living.

However, there are besides many difficult and obscure statements in

Scripture, whose sense cannot be

grasped by anyone at the first glance. Yet, lest they should have been put
into the Scripture in vain or

should give occasion for error, God wanted the gift of interpretation to be
present in the church. This,

like the gift of healing, of miracles, and of tongues is not common to all, as
Paul says in 1 Cor. 14: “To one is given the gift of healing through the
Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another various kinds of
tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.” 23 God does not want
this gift either despised or rejected, but used reverently as a tool and aid for
discovering and understanding the true and sound

meaning of Scripture, as the eunuch of Queen Candace says, Acts 8:31:

“How can I understand, if no

one shows me the way?” And when he understood that Philip, who had the
gift of interpretation, had

been sent to him by God, he gratefully received him into his chariot and
conferred with him about the
meaning of the passage in Isaiah. Of this kind of interpretation Augustine
beautifully says in De moribus ecclesiae, Bk. 1: “The greater the difficulty
with which the Scriptures are opened up where they are closed, the sweeter
we find them to be after they have been opened through interpretation.”

However, this gift of interpretation is not found outside of the church in the
unregenerate, for the light of the Holy Spirit is kindled in the hearts of the
godly. Concerning the unregenerate, Paul says in 1 Cor.

2:14–15: “The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of
God, for they are folly to him;

the spiritual man judges all things.” And 2 Cor. 4:3–4: “If our Gospel is
veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of
this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers.” But in

the church the Son of God, sitting at the right hand of the Father, bestows
such gifts for the edification of His body. (Eph. 4:11–14)

2 This also is certain, that no one should rely on his own wisdom in the
interpretation of the Scripture, not even in the clear passages, for it is
clearly written in 2 Peter 1:20: “The Scripture is not a matter of one’s
private interpretation.” And whoever twists the Holy Scripture so that it is
understood

according to his preconceived opinions does this to his own destruction (2

Peter 3:16). The best reader

of the Scripture, according to Hilary, is one who does not carry the
understanding of what is said to the

Scripture but who carries it away from the Scripture. We also gratefully and
reverently use the labors of

the fathers who by their commentaries have profitably clarified many

passages of the Scripture. And we
confess that we are greatly confirmed by the testimonies of the ancient
church in the true and sound understanding of the Scripture. Nor do we
approve of it if someone invents for himself a meaning which

conflicts with all antiquity, and for which there are clearly no testimonies of
the church.

3 Since these things are so, what is there to criticize in the canon of the
Council of Trent concerning the interpretation of the Scripture? I answer:
This canon has been slyly worded in general terms. But there are
particularly four chief points in it concerning which there is strife between
us. These they here wrapped in crafty generalities, but elsewhere they
explain them very clearly.

4 In the first place, they contend that the gift of interpretation is so bound to
the regular succession of the bishops that whenever anyone is brought to
that throne, all his interpretations must at once be received and respected as
legitimate, true, sound, and as having authority because of the privileged
place which they occupy. Thus they say that the pope has all rights in the
shrine of his heart, even if he is ignorant and so forgetful that he forgets
even himself; also that he may give his will as the reason for the things he
wants; that he can change the form of the sacraments which were handed
down by the apostles; that he can decree things contrary to the epistles of
Paul; that he can make dispensations contrary to the first four councils and
contrary to the words of the Gospel, etc. I think Andrada will recognize the
very words of the canonists. And such is also the persuasion of the Synod,
that when all

the bishops are assembled there, as the clean and unclean animals were
gathered in Noah’s ark, whatever interpretation they make without proof
must be accepted because they imagine that the gift of

interpretation is inseparately bound to the throne of the bishops.

But this is false, for when Paul in 1 Cor. 12:11 discusses the gift of
interpretation, he expressly says:
“All these are inspired by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each
one individually as he wills.”

And the whole history of the Old Testament shows that God often passed
over the regular high priests

and priests and raised up prophets, interpreters of His will, from elsewhere,
and frequently from other

tribes. Futhermore, the whole world now sees what kind of interpreters our
bishops are.

5 In the second place, out of the gift of interpretation they make a kind of
dictatorial authority, so that it is not necessary for them to prove the
interpretation by showing sure and firm reasons and principles

of interpretation, but without examination, without investigation and

judgment, they want us to swear to

that sense which those thrust on us who arrogate to themselves the right of
interpretation without a sign

that they have the Spirit. Yet when Paul says in 1 Thess. 5:20–21: “Do not
quench the Spirit, do not despise prophesying,” he at once adds: “Test
everything; hold fast what is good.” Thus in Acts 17:11–

12, when Paul was interpreting the Scriptures, the Bereans first search the
Scriptures, whether these things are so, and when they see that the
interpretation agrees with Scripture, they approve and accept it.

And in Acts 8:31 the eunuch describes the interpretation with the elegant
word

(“to show the

way,” “to guide”). He asks, and Philip replies, and in this way the principles
of the true interpretation
are shown, so that the eunuch, guided as it were by the hand of Philip,
himself learns and understands

what is the meaning of the passage which he was reading. Thus in 1 Cor.
14:29–30, Paul describes how

pious teachers ought in dark passages to seek the true interpretation by an

exchange of opinions: “Let

two or three prophets speak!” And he adds: “Let the others weigh what is
said. If a revelation is made to

another sitting by, let the first be silent.”

When Augustine teaches others in De doctrina Christiana and elsewhere,

he does not take on dictatorial authority of interpretation but shows how the
darker passages must be interpreted from the

clearer ones, how from the wording of Scripture, from the context, by
comparison with other passages,

and by the analogy of faith, the simple, sound, and true interpretation must
be sought. And because the

un-spiritual man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they
are folly to him, the spiritual, however, judges all things (1 Cor. 2:15),
therefore the illumination of the Holy Spirit is necessary for finding and
judging the true meaning of Scripture. And our heavenly Father will give
the Holy Spirit to

those who ask Him (Luke 11:13). Thus Paul prays in Eph. 1:17–18; 3:16–
17; Phil. 1:9–11; and Col.

1:9–10 that God may give the churches the Spirit of illumination. So also
David prays in Ps. 119.

According to this sense, Origen says in Homily 17 on Exodus: “We must

not only apply diligence to
learn the sacred writings but must also beseech the Lord that He would
Himself take the sealed book and see fit to open it; for it is He who opens
the minds that the Scriptures may be understood.” And in

Homily 8 on Joshua he writes: “To explain these things we need the grace
of the Holy Spirit.”

Hilary says in De Trinitate, Bk. 4: “The understanding of what is said must

be taken from the reason for the speech.” And in Bk. 9 he says: “Let the
understanding of what is said be looked for either from

what went before or from what follows after.” In Bk. 8 he writes: “Matters
of faith must be judged not

according to our will but from the excellence of what is said.” Basil says in
De Spiritu Sancto, ch. 1:

“The interpreter must thoroughly scrutinize the meaning which lies in the
single words and syllables.”

Cyril says in In Johannem, Bk. 8: “When we want to understand a passage

of Scripture, three points above all must be considered diligently: the time
when the statement was written; the person who says

it, or to whom or concerning whom it is said; and the matter on account of

which or concerning which it

is said. For so we will be able to investigate the true sense without error.”

Augustine in De utilitate credendi, ch. 2, teaches four modes of

interpretation: (1) the historical, when one teaches what was written or
done; (2) the analytical, what was said or done, and for what reason; (3)

the analogical, when it is shown that the Scripture does not contradict itself;
(4) the allegorical, when we teach that certain things are not to be taken
literally but understood figuratively.

Likewise he says in De moribus ecclesiae, Bk. 1, ch. 1: “Both diligence and

piety must be employed.
The one will make us find knowledge; the other will cause us to deserve to
know.” The same author says in De scalis paradisi, ch. 2: “Reading
searches, prayer asks, meditation finds, contemplation tastes.”

6 There is therefore no dictatorial or pontifical authority of interpretation in

the church, but there are definite rules according to which interpretation
must be carried out and arrived at. For the church has

the right and privilege of judging. But the papalists take this right of
interpretation to themselves, so that by one and the same stroke they both
exempt themselves from the labor of proving and take away from

the church the privilege of judging. This is what we fight against in this
canon. For we love and value

greatly the true and sound interpretations which agree with the rules which
we have quoted from the fathers. But to the interpretation of the papalists
we apply what Tertullion says concerning the law: “A

law which does not want to be tested is rightly suspect.” Hilary says in De
Trinitate, Bk. 4: “For we must give an account not for the divine words but
for our understanding.” And Jerome in his Apologia

de libris contra Jovinianum says: “It was my purpose not to draw the
Scriptures to my will but to say what I understood to be the intention of the
Scriptures. For it is the duty of the commentator to set forth not what he
himself wants but what the one whom he interprets means. Otherwise, if he
says contrary

things, he will be not so much interpreter as opponent of him whom he

attempts to explain. Certainly,

wherever I do not interpret the Scriptures but speak freely of my own

opinion, anyone who pleases may

criticize me.
7 In the third place, when the papalists have transformed any statement of
Scripture so that it agrees

with their own corruptions, they search diligently in the writings of the
fathers that they may scrape together from them a few statements which
will in some way defend their purpose. And such

interpretations of the ancients, no matter on what occasion or in what way

they were given, they contend, must simply be accepted without judgment
and examination, regardless whether they agree with the words of Scripture
or disagree with them, although the fathers themselves do not want the
reader so bound to themselves that they believe it necessary for him to
believe something just because it

is said by the fathers, but because they will be able to persuade them either
through the canonical Scriptures or through other credible reasons that their
statements do not depart from the truth. For these are Augustine’s words in
Letter No. 112, to Paulina, and in Letter No. 19, to Jerome. Origen says on
Rom. 2: “These statements about circumcision have been made by us with
the understanding that if anyone says it better and more correctly, his view
shall be held rather than ours.”

Jerome writes to Minerius and Alexander: “My intention is to read the

ancients, to test everything, to

retain what is good, and not to depart from the faith of the catholic church.”
The same author says in his foreword to Hosea: “Concerning Origen,
Eusebius, Didymus, etc., I say this that you may know what

forerunners I had in the field of this prophet; whom, as I confess to your

prudence, simply, not proudly,

as one of my friends whispers, I have not followed in everything, in order

that I might be a judge of the

work rather than an interpreter and might say what seemed right to me in
each instance.” Jerome also
does not want his interpretations to be considered as oracles but submits
them to the judgment of the reader, as in ch. 2 of Micah: “It appears to me
that the sense can be given this way if the wise reader will be satisfied with
our reason.” So he does also on Zeph. 2; Is. 19; Ezek. 36 and 40; in the
second book on

Zechariah, etc. And to Augustine he says: “Let your wisdom answer me

why in the explanation of the

Psalms you think differently, contrary to so many and such great

interpreters.”

This freedom in the matter of interpretations must by all means be retained

in the church in order that

the interpretations of any person whatsoever may be read with judgment

and freely be examined according to the sources and foundations. Nor must
any interpretation of Scripture be condemned because it disagrees with
some of the ancients, so long as it is in agreement with the words of
Scripture, the circumstances of the text, and the analogy of the faith. …

8 In the fourth place, the papalists arrogate to themselves also this right, that
they are able even in the clearest passages of Scripture freely to depart from
the simple and true meaning which the proper significance of the words
gives and by such dictatorial authority to patch on another meaning, so that

we must believe not what the Scripture says simply, strictly, and clearly but
what they through their power and authority interpret for us. By this
strategy they seek to escape the clearest passages concerning justifying
faith, concerning the sins which remain in the regenerate, concerning the
imperfection of good works in this life, free will, the intercession of Christ,
etc. When Christ says:

“Drink of it, all of you,” they add their own interpretation: “Not all but only
the priests.” When Paul says, Heb. 13:4: “Marriage is honorable in all,”
they say, “Not in all but only in the laity.” In 1 Cor. 7:2
we read: “To avoid fornication, let everyone who cannot abstain have his
own wife.” There “everyone”

is taken by them to mean only some, in spite of the fact that the meaning is
quite clear. When Christ says to the apostles: “Kings rule, but not so you,”
they want us to depart from the clear meaning and to

accept I don’t know what interpretations.

Doctrines which prohibit to marry and command to abstain from foods

which God has created to be

used Paul calls doctrines of demons. But that most clear light accomplishes
nothing. For they contend

that these words must be understood not as they sound but as they interpret
them. And that they might

further play this game in the interpretation of Scripture with impunity and
even with authority, therefore this canon has been drawn up in this way.
Osius says of the express word of God: “If anyone has the

interpretation of the Roman Church concerning any passage of Scripture,

even if he does not know or

understand whether or how it agrees with the words of Scripture, he

nevertheless has the very Word of

God.” Thus the interpretation of the Roman Church is: “Behold, here are
two swords, that is: The Roman pontiff has the administration of both
swords, the spiritual and the secular.”

Elisha miraculously made bitter waters sweet by casting salt into them, that
is, in the church there must now be holy water and consecrated salt, and we
must believe in its efficacy against the devil and

sin. Likewise, in Ps. 8:6–7: “God has put all things under the feet of
Christ,” that is, of the Roman pope.
“The beasts of the field,” that is, the people who are living on earth. “The
fish of the sea,” that is, the souls in purgatory. “The birds of the air,” that is,
the souls of the blessed, whom the pope can propose

for adoration through canonization.

9 Many more such not interpretations but mockeries are found in the public
writings of the papalists.

In order that their authority for all these and similar things … may stand
fast and remain safe, therefore Andrada clamors through so many pages
about implicit faith and declaims deceitfully: “Since that may

be said to be implicit which lies hidden in any matter, therefore faith must
also be implicit, because we

believe that all that is contained in the sacred writings is true, even though
much escapes our understanding, for I cannot in this life examine and enter
into all its secret places. Thus the saints of the Old Testament believed
many things implicitly which we in the New Testament believe explicitly.”
But

hold on, my good man, you are fighting without an opponent about things
concerning which there is no

controversy. For Andrada knows quite well that the papalists, when they
contend for implicit faith, do

not want or contend for that about which he orates at such length. Therefore
it is sophistry.

But this is what I have called the Babylonian captivity of implicit faith,
which Andrada expressly defends also later on, that they want to lay on us
the necessity of believing whatever the papal church

holds and proposes, even if it cannot be proved by any testimonies of the

Word, and, indeed, in such a
way that it is not necessary either to think or to inquire or to understand
what and what manner of things these are or whether and where they have
any basis in the Word of God. Erasmus confesses somewhere

concerning a certain disputation against the papalists that their opinion has
no certain and reliable testimonies of Scripture but that the opposite opinion
could be proved better, more clearly, and more firmly from the Word of
God. However, he adds: “Nevertheless if the church commands this, I shall
believe it. For I will take captive my intellect in obedience to the church.”

It is this, Andrada, about which we are disputing, not as you misrepresent it,
as if an outstanding and

complete knowledge of the sacred book were required in peasants, in

whom, as you confess, this conviction is nevertheless necessary, that the
articles of faith which are set forth are not human inventions, but divine
teachings delivered in the Word of God. But when the words of the
Decalog, the

Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the institution of Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper
are set before the unlearned,

the very words of Scripture are there, in which, without doubt, the summary
of the heavenly doctrine is

contained. Therefore the faith of even the most unlearned person who
believes these things is not the implicit faith of the papalists, for it embraces
the very words and meaning of the Scripture. But they want to draw the
concept of implicit faith to this, that no matter whether a thing is prohibited
or taught, it is not necessary to think and search whether the things that are
being set forth have a sure, firm, and clear basis in the Word of God, but
simply to believe it, persuaded by the authority of the persons. I said that
this persuasion is not true faith, but a slavish opinion, received not from the
Word of God but from

human persuasion. This slavery they impose not only on the unlearned but
also on those with seeing eyes in order that they may not see, search, or
understand where in the Scripture the things which they
set forth are grounded, but that they may simply believe it because the pope
and the prelates of the church have so decreed. This is the point of the
debate concerning the implicit faith.

We know that not all possess the same power of discernment. A deep
knowledge of the Scripture is

not required in the more unlearned. For Augustine rightly says in Contra
epistolam fundamenti, ch. 4:

“The best safeguard of the rest of the multitude is not a lively understanding
but a simple faith.”

Nevertheless also their faith must not be without the Word of God.
Therefore Augustine describes the

manner of instructing the unlearned as one in which the sum of the

heavenly doctrine revealed in the Scripture is set before them and they are
afterwards led to the Scripture itself, everyone according to the measure of
his gift.

10 Chrysostom often severely reproves the lay people for relegating the
reading of the Scripture solely to the monks, so that they themselves do not
see, read, and inquire how that which is taught in the church agrees with the
Scripture. Therefore he expressly disapproves of the implicit faith as the
papalists dispute about it. And the desire of all fathers was not to lead the
people away from the Scripture to the implicit faith of human persuasion
but to lead them to a knowledge of the Scripture. For

this reason they interpreted the Scriptures to the people and proved their
explanations from the Scriptures. They indeed set this forth in one way to
the catechumens, in another way to recent converts,

and in still another way to the more established; nevertheless, they never
taught without the Word of God. Indeed, they distinguished these grades in
this way in order to show that men were to be led more
and more to the foundations themselves in the Scriptures. But since you not
only do the opposite but also command it to be done by setting against us
the specter of your implicit faith, it is this that we criticize in you and of
which we accuse you. Nor is there reason for you, Andrada, to hope that
you will

deceive us by your sophistical arguments, unless you think, perhaps, as

Augustine says, that you can uphold a bad cause by false reasoning,
strutting about on the stilts of bombastic speech, or by creating

delays.

11 Andrada marvels that men who do not themselves have the gift of
interpretation should be able or willing to judge concerning interpretations.
We know indeed that there are degrees and that not all have

the same power of discernment in the church. We know also that no one
should be wiser than is proper.

Yet it is known how the fathers trusted the judgment of the people for
whom they interpreted the Scriptures in their sermons. For the interpreter
must show the reasons and bases of his interpretation so

clearly and certainly that also others who themselves do not have the gift of
interpretation may be able

to understand and grasp them. In this way the eunuch recognized that the
interpretation of Philip was

true. (Acts 8:35–38)

23 The reference is actually to 1 Cor. 12:9–10.

Second Topic

CONCERNING TRADITIONS

From the First Decree of the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent
The most holy Synod of Trent, perceiving that this truth and instruction is
contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, after
they had been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself or
from the apostles themselves, the Holy Spirit dictating, have come down to

us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; and following the example of
the orthodox fathers, it receives and venerates with equal devotion and
reverence all the books both of the Old and of the New

Testament (since God is the author of both) and also said traditions, both
those pertaining to faith and

those pertaining to morals, as dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy

Spirit and preserved by a

continuous succession in the Catholic Church.

Examination

1 This topic of the papalists is very far-reaching, embracing in its bosom

whatever the papalist church transmits and preserves of things which cannot
be taught and proved with testimonies of Scripture. It is

truly a Pandora’s box, under whose cover every kind of corruption, abuse,
and superstition has been brought into the church. For what fiction will not
be allowed if once this postulate is granted, that proof and confirmation
from the Scripture are not necessary? What error shall we refute if the
antiquity of error and the multitude of the erring can lend protection to
error? This, indeed, the papalists aim at with their disputation concerning
traditions, that the abuses which have crept into the church outside of and

contrary to the rule of Scripture, if only they are widely spread and have
been confirmed by the pretext

that they are old, shall have the title not only of church custom but, what is
more, of apostolic tradition.
2 It is profitable to remind the reader how the status of the disputation has
gradually been changed.

For in the first disputes of the papalists against Luther the things which
could not be confirmed by any

testimonies of Scripture were defended on the plea that the things which the
church decreed had equal

force and authority with those concerning which it was certain from
Scripture that they had been divinely revealed. Therefore many things were
at that time disputed concerning the authority of the church, concerning the
completeness of the power of the pope, concerning ecclesiastical customs,
etc.

These are the statements which Eck placed in the very front in his
Enchiridion, as if in battlefront, against Luther. Later, however, it was
realized that those general statements either could not sustain the great
weight of the papal structure or that it was certainly too laborious to defend
them if they were attacked with firm arguments from Scripture. Therefore
finally there was discovered, as a much shorter

way, the argument about the unwritten traditions of the apostles. For they
imagine that many things which are necessary for faith and morals are not
contained in the Scripture but have been handed down

by the apostles. And soon they added another postulate: that the things
which are transmitted and observed in the Roman Church which cannot be
proved by any testimony of Scripture are the very things which were
delivered orally by the apostles and were not put down in writing. And this,
says Andrada, is the principle beyond which it is not lawful to go in an
investigation. Through such postulates, as the geometricians call them, they
think they have been relieved of the burden and labor of

proving things. For, being freed from the narrow confines of the Scripture,
as they call them, there is now nothing which they cannot produce from the
wide expanse of the topic concerning traditions. What
therefore was once the shrine of the papal heart, the foulness of which even
the blind now see and the

ignorant know, that is now the boundless and immense general statement
about the unwritten traditions

of the apostles.

3 However, because the word “traditions” was not used by the ancients in
one and the same way, and

because the traditions of which mention is made in the writings of the

ancients are not all of the same

kind, the papalists sophistically mix together such testimonies without

discrimination and, as the saying

goes, whitewash all traditions from one pot in order that they may disguise
them under the pretext and

appearance of antiquity. Therefore I judge that this whole dispute about the
traditions cannot be

explained in a simpler way, and that there is no more fitting answer to the
testimonies of the ancients, which are trotted out with great show by the
papalists in this dispute, than by distinguishing various kinds of traditions.
We shall therefore divide this material about the traditions under certain
heads, or kinds, and shall show what are the testimonies of the ancients, to
what class of traditions they pertain,

and what is to be thought concerning each of them.

4 In this way it will become clear that those things in this dispute which
have a certain appearance of validity, if they are correctly distinguished and
explained, in no way protect the corruptions, abuses, and superstitions of
the papal rule. But it must be continually recalled to mind that the point of
the dispute of the papalists concerning traditions is this, that the Scripture
does not contain all things which pertain to the articles of faith and the
teachings of godliness but that many things which are necessary for the
articles of faith and the teachings of godliness must be accepted and
believed outside of and beyond Scripture, from the unwritten traditions that
cannot be proved from the witness of Scripture.

SECTION I

The First Kind of Traditions

1 We shall set down as the first kind of traditions that the things which
Christ and the apostles delivered by word of mouth and which were later
committed to writing by the evangelists and apostles arc often

called tradition. Thus Cyprian says: “In presenting the chalice of the Lord in
order that it may be filled with wine, let the tradition of the Lord be
observed, and let nothing else be done by us than what the

Lord has previously done for us.” This tradition is, however, found in
writing. Also Basil, Contra Eunomium, Bk. 3, says: “This is in open
conflict with the tradition of saving Baptism. ‘Go ye,’ He says,

‘baptize in the name, etc.’” Again: “Our Baptism is according to the

tradition of the Lord, in the name

of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” That tradition certainly is found
written.

2 Let the reader observe how sincerely the papalists act! For wherever they
find the word “tradition,”

they immediately bend it to their traditions which cannot be proved from

Scripture, as when Paul says

in 1 Cor. 15:3, 1–2: “I delivered [ tradidi] to you what you have received, if
you hold it, unless you have believed in vain.” Here they at once cry out:
“Do you hear? Traditions!” I hear, but at once I read in the same place that
Paul explains in writing what the things arc which he delivered to them: “I
delivered to
you that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that He
was buried and was raised in

accordance with the Scriptures.” You hear that the traditions of Paul were
“written” in a twofold way.

For they were first taken from the Scripture of the Old Testament, and
secondly, they were committed to

writing by Paul himself. And still there are people who are not ashamed to
twist this passage to the traditions which are flaunted outside of, beside, and
against the Scripture. Paul says of the Lord’s Supper: “I received from the
Lord what I also delivered to you.” But this tradition he himself also, after
the evangelists, set down in writing. The Jesuits quote the statement of Paul
in 2 Thess. 3:6: “Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and
not in accord with the tradition that they received

from us.” But at once, in that very chapter, he describes what tradition he
means, as is clear to anyone

who looks at it. And yet they want to prove from this that many things must
be believed which cannot

be proved by any testimony of Scripture. It is due to the same kind of

shamelessness that they quote for

their unwritten traditions what is written Acts 16:4: “They delivered to them
for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and
elders who were at Jerusalem,” although in Acts

15:23 it is very clearly stated that these decrees were committed to writing
by the apostles.

3 Thus when Cyprian says in Ad Pompeium: “If the truth has become
uncertain in any point, let us return to the origin in the Lord and to the
tradition of the Gospels and of the apostles,” Lindanus at once exclaims:
“Do you hear the most salutary authority of the unwritten tradition?” But he
maliciously passes over what is found in the very same epistle: “Whence is
this tradition? Does it come from the authority of the Lord and of the
Gospels or from commands and epistles of the apostles? For God testifies in
Joshua 1:7 that those things which are written must be done. If, therefore, it
is either commanded in the Gospels or contained in the epistles and the Acts
of the Apostles, let also this holy

tradition be observed.” So says Cyprian.

My righteous anger would indeed not lack the proper words if I decided to
paint this trick of the papalists in its true colors. But let it suffice that I have
shown the reader the general outline.

4 Basil, in a discourse on the confession of faith, sets down this definition:

“Faith is the unhesitating assent to the things which are heard in the
certainty of truth and preached by the grace of God.” It is

marvelous how Lindanus rejoices because in this definition of faith no

mention is made of the Scripture.

However, soon after, in the third verse, Basil adds this sentence: “If the
Lord is faithful in all He says, it is clearly a falling from faith and a sin of
pride either to reject anything of the things that are written or to add
anything unwritten.” Consider, I beg you, dear reader, what sort of trick this
is which the papalists employ. A very clear testimony of Irenaeus is found
in Eusebius, Bk. 4, ch. 14, about Polycarp,

that he always taught the same things which he had received from the
apostles and which the church also has transmitted as alone true. In the
same place we read: “He converted many heretics to the church

of God while he preached the one and only truth which he had received
from the apostles, which also

the church transmitted.” It is undeniably the truest of axioms that that alone
is the true doctrine which

the apostles transmitted and which the primitive church professed as

received from the apostles. But the
question is whether that doctrine is another and different from the one
which we have as it is comprehended in the Scripture. The papalists simply
distinguish traditions as opposite the Scripture.

When Irenaeus says that Polycarp taught what he had received from the
apostles, they interpret this to

mean that he preached other and many more things as received from the
apostles than are contained in

the Scripture. So they say. But for many reasons their faith is suspect for us.
Therefore other testimonies must be sought. There can, however, be no
doubt that Polycarp had received from the apostles also the

things which were written; how, then, are the things which Polycarp is said
to have received from the

apostles simply distinguished as opposite the Scripture? But let us hear

Irenaeus’ own testimony, who in

Eusebius, Bk. 4, ch. 14, says that the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
was written in such a way,

and drawn up to this end, that from it the nature of faith and the doctrine of
the truth could be known by those who have a concern for their salvation.
Nevertheless, in that epistle, for it is extant, no mention is made of those
things which are paraded by the papalists for the traditions, but he writes
about the incarnation of Christ, the mystery of the cross, that Christ, who
bore our sins, is our righteousness, in

order that we may live in Him, about the resurrection, the last judgment,
faith, hope, charity, about good works, about bearing the weak, about
prayer, and about other things which are expressly contained in

the Scripture. The nature of the faith of Polycarp is therefore not outside the
Scripture.
5 Let us add another testimony which is even clearer. In Eusebius, Bk. 5,
ch. 20, Irenaeus says that he had inscribed, not on paper but in the heart,
how Polycarp had told that he had kept company with the

apostles, how he had recalled their speeches, and what he had heard from
them concerning the Lord and

concerning His miracles and doctrine. With respect to this passage my

friend Andrada solemnly exults

in behalf of the traditions outside of Scripture. But Irenaeus immediately

adds that Polycarp had said that those things which he had received from
those who had themselves seen the Word of life were “all

in agreement with Holy Scriptures.” This is truly a golden statement of

Irenaeus, which correctly explains how most of the statements of the
ancients concerning traditions must be understood. The apostles handed
down many things orally; apostolic men received many things from the
apostles by oral

tradition which they on their part later delivered to their own disciples. But
Irenaeus says that all these things were “in agreement with the Scriptures.”
We, too, reject none of these but receive and venerate

all things which are in agreement with the Holy Scriptures. The papalists,
however, contend for such traditions as cannot be proved with any
testimony of Scripture, for these are the words Andrada uses,

who also pronounces the anathema on those who make the assertion:
“Unless we are clearly taught from

the Old and New Testaments, we shall not follow the doctrines of the
fathers and the tradition of the church.” Let the reader himself set against
each other the things which Polycarp handed down as received from the
apostles and the things which the papalists flaunt under the title of
traditions, for Irenaeus declares that the things Polycarp handed down were
all in harmony with the Holy Scriptures;
but the papalists expressly affirm that their traditions cannot be proved by
any testimony of the Scripture. Yes, they pronounce the anathema on all
who seek “agreement” of the traditions of the papalists with the Old and
New Testaments.

6 Therefore the first kind of traditions is this, that the apostles delivered the
doctrine orally, but this was afterwards set down in writing in the Scripture.
Apostolic men also proclaimed many things received from apostles, but “all
these agreed with the Holy Scriptures.” And certainly these

considerations give no protection to the traditions of the papalists, which

cannot be proved by any testimony of Scripture, as they themselves confess.
It must, however, be observed in connection with this first kind of traditions
how fraudulently the papalists quote and treat the testimonies of Scripture
and of antiquity in order to establish and confirm their spurious traditions.

SECTION II

The Second Kind of Traditions

1 The second kind of traditions is this, that the books of Holy Scripture
were, as Augustine says, cared for by the church in an unbroken span of
time and by a sure unbroken succession and faithfully transmitted to
posterity and to us, as it were, from hand to hand. Thus Origen says that he
had learned

“through tradition” that four Gospels are accepted without doubt in the
whole church. And Eusebius, in

treating of the canonical books, repeatedly employs the words “tradition”

and “reception.” But the manner of this tradition, that is, the witness of the
church concerning the genuine and canonical books

of Scripture, was explained in detail above, when we were treating of the

canonical books.

2 This tradition, by which the books of the Holy Scripture are given into our
hands, we receive reverently; but this does not support the papalists, who
are fighting for dogmas which cannot be proved

by any testimony of Scripture. For by this tradition the church confesses

that it is bound to that voice of doctrine which sounds forth in the Scripture,
and when it passes on this tradition, it teaches that posterity also is bound to
the Scripture. And in the time of the fathers those who sought the truth in
the church were led to the Scriptures, as can be seen from Augustine in De
catechizandis rudibus.

And in Contra epistolam Manichaei, ch. 5, Augustine tells how he had been
led to the faith of the Catholic church. For he says that he had heeded the
Catholics who praised the Gospel and said:

“Believe the Gospel.” And there he introduces the common saying:

“Indeed, I would not believe the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic
church did not move me.” By the witness of the church, therefore, he was
moved to read the Gospel and to believe that the divinely revealed doctrine
is contained in it. But does he, after he has come to faith in the Gospel,
promise that he would believe the

church more than the Gospel if the church should decree or teach something
which is either against the

Gospel or which cannot be proved by any testimony of Scripture? This

certainly he does not say. Rather,

elsewhere he pronounces the anathema on those who preach anything

outside of the things which we have received in the Scriptures of the Law
and of the Gospel. And in that same place he says that because he believes
the Gospel, he cannot believe Manichaeus, because he does not read
anything there

about the apostleship of Manichaeus. Therefore this second kind of

traditions leads us to the Scripture

and binds us to the voice of doctrine that sounds forth in it, to the point that
the axiom of the papalists
“that many dogmas must be received which cannot be proved by any
testimony of Scripture” is not proved by it.

3 But the papalists object: “If you accept this tradition of the church, which
bears witness concerning the books of the Holy Scripture which have been
accepted, by what right will you reject the other traditions concerning
which the papal church bears witness that they were delivered without
writing by

the apostles? For the testimony of the church, as Andrada says, must
certainly be either everywhere rejected or everywhere accepted. I reply:
“There is a very great difference between the primitive church,

which was at the time of the apostles and of apostolic men testifying with
regard to the books of Holy

Scripture, and the papal church, which is foisting its fictions as apostolic
traditions on us without proof.

Where the fathers describe this tradition concerning the books of the
Scripture, they prove it from the

testimonies of the primitive church. If they had done the same thing with an
equal degree of certainty

also with regard to other traditions of which they make mention

somewhere, then it would indeed be true that they should be received with
the same right. But they affirm that the things which were handed

down by the apostles were all in harmony with the Holy Scriptures, as we
have already shown from Irenaeus and shall soon demonstrate more fully.
Therefore we have it from the tradition of the fathers

itself how one must judge what are true apostolic traditions, as Jerome says
commenting on the first chapter of Haggai: “The sword of God, which is
the living Word of God, strikes through the things which men of their own
accord, without the authority and testimonies of Scripture, invent and think
up,
pretending that it is apostolic tradition.” Therefore the tradition of the
church commends the books of

Holy Scripture to us in such a way that it reminds us that all other things
must be examined according to

it … and that the things which are in agreement with it must be accepted but
what does not agree, even

if it is put forth as apostolic tradition, must be struck down by the sword of

the Word of God. This is the simple and true solution of the above
objection, and the papalists cannot reject it, otherwise they themselves will
be forced by the same right to accept also the traditions of the Pharisees and
the entire

Cabala of the Talmudists. For Augustine aptly calls the Jews our copyists
and keepers of the books, because they were the custodians of the books of
the Old Testament and continued this custody even in

the exile.

4 The papalists think they have a place of refuge in that they maintain that
the church received the books of the Old Testament from the tradition not of
the Pharisees but of the prophets, of Christ, and of

the apostles. But since, according to Augustine, an unbroken period of time

is required for this thing, the Pharisees cannot be excluded from the witness
concerning the books of the Old Testament. Why, then,

did not Christ and the apostles, who accepted the tradition concerning the
books of the Old Testament,

also by the same right accept the other traditions of the elders, since they
indeed bear this title: “It was said to the men of old”? By what right do the
papalists repudiate the Talmudic traditions although they

accept the tradition of the Jews concerning the books of the Old Testament?
If they say that the Jews
invented the Talmudic Cabala, these will stoutly deny it, for they name as
its first authors the patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets. Why, then, do you
papalists not believe this their witness, especially since we

do not repudiate their witness concerning the books of the Old Testament?
We reply simply: “Because

we learn from the prophetical books, concerning which the Jews bear
witness, that as much of the doctrine of the patriarchs, Moses, and the
prophets as is sufficient and necessary was committed to writing. For this
reason we examine all the other traditions according to what has been
written, and the

tradition of the Jews which is contrary to this witness, transmitting as it

does much that is outside, beyond, and contrary to the Scripture, we do not
accept but repudiate with the best right, for this we learn from the very
books which the Jews commend to us with their witness. If the papalists
have any

other answer, let them bring it forward, and we shall be able to hold it up
against their own objection,

why, although we accept the traditions of the church concerning the

canonical books, we do not similarly also accept all other things which are
foisted on us under the name of traditions by the papal

church.

SECTION III

The Third Kind of Traditions

1 We set down as the third kind of traditions that concerning which

Irenaeus, in Bk. 3, and Tertullian, in De praescriptione adversus haereticos,
speak. Both bestow high praise on the apostolic tradition.

Irenaeus says, Bk. 3, ch. 3: “The tradition of the apostles, which has been
made known in all the world,
is available in the church for examination by all who want to hear the
truth.” And in ch. 4: he says “It is not necessary to seek the truth with others
which can easily be got from the church, for in it the apostles, like the rich
in their depository, have brought together in the fullest manner all those
things which belong to the truth, in order that everyone who wishes to do so
may take from it the water of life. For

here is the entrance to life, but all others are thieves and robbers. For this
reason it is necessary to avoid the latter but to cherish with great diligence
what is of the church and to accept the tradition of the truth.

But what if the apostles had not left us the Scriptures? Would it not then be
necessary to follow the order of the tradition which they delivered to those
to whom they entrusted the churches? Many barbarous tribes hold to this
order, for they have salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without
letter and ink, and diligently observe the ancient tradition of the apostles.”

2 Tertullian writes in De praescriptione: “We shall set up this rule: If Christ

sent the apostles to preach, then no other preachers are to be received
except those whom Christ appointed. But what they

preached, that is, what Christ revealed to them, I prescribe here too, cannot
be proved in any other way

than by those same churches, which the apostles themselves founded by

personally preaching to them,

both by word of mouth and by epistles.” Later he writes: “If these things are
so, it is certain that from

now on all doctrine which agrees with these apostolic churches, the
fountains and birthplaces of faith, is to be accepted as truth, because it
without doubt holds to that which the churches received from the apostles,
the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God. Every other doctrine,
however, must be judged

to be a lie, because it is against the truth of the churches, of the apostles, of

Christ, and of God.”
3 These glorious encomiums on the traditions seem to give much aid to the
papalists against the Scripture. They also parade in all their books, as
though in a triumphal procession, the following statement of Tertullian,
which they have taken out of its context: “We should, therefore, not appeal
to

the Scriptures nor base our battle on them, since in them there is no victory
or only an uncertain one.”

4 But the simple truth, firmly founded and sure of itself, neither quails nor
flees before the true testimonies of antiquity. For we shall clearly show that
these arguments of Irenaeus and Tertullian do not weaken but confirm our
opinion concerning the Holy Scripture if their statements are not viewed in

a mutilated form but the whole sequence of the argument is considered.

Men experienced in

jurisprudence say that it is unjust not to look upon a law as a whole but to
make a pronouncement on the

basis of some fragment of it. Thus Hilary rightly reminds us that in our
disputes the understanding of

what is said must be taken from the reasons for saying it. Let us therefore
begin with the question about

which the papalists are disputing, the traditions, and let us ask whether the
argumentation of Irenaeus

and Tertullian was undertaken to prove the necessity of receiving certain

dogmas of faith which could

not be proved by any testimony of Scripture but which they wanted to have
believed without Scripture,

outside of and beyond Scripture, solely on the basis of a tradition for which
there are no testimonies in
Scripture. The matter is not obscure. For both Irenaeus and Tertullian
expressly tell us concerning which

dogmas of faith this dispute was undertaken; for they recite almost word for
word those articles of faith

which today make up the symbol called the Apostles’ Creed. Can these
articles of faith not be proved, demonstrated, and established from
Scripture? Can the contrary errors of heretics concerning these articles not
be attacked and refuted from the Scripture? Surely it is crystal clear that the
sum of the whole Scripture consists chiefly in these articles. And Irenaeus
does nothing else in Books 3, 4, and 5

than to prove and confirm those articles of faith at length from Scripture,
and to take from the testimonies of Scripture refutation of the perversions
that conflict with these articles.

5 Therefore let this, which is crystal clear and undeniable, be diligently

observed first of all in this dispute, that the controversy was not about
dogmas of faith which they could not prove, or the opposite

of which they could not refute, with testimonies from the Scripture. For
they are those articles in which, as it were, the sum of the whole Scripture
consists. Let this be observed, for then the reader will know

with what cunning the papalists twist these arguments of Irenaeus and
Tertullian to their traditions, concerning which they themselves confess that
they cannot be proved with any testimony of Scripture.

6 But why do Irenaeus and Tertullian appeal to the traditions which the
apostolic churches had received from the apostles and were holding and
observing at that time, although these articles of faith

have many sure, firm, and clear testimonies in the Scripture? It is not
necessary to divine the reason by

means of conjectures, for both men clearly explain it. Was this the reason,
that they could not bring forth from the Scripture sufficiently clear and firm
testimonies concerning these articles of faith or to refute the fables of the
heretics from it? By no means, for the heretics themselves could not deny
that

the faith of the church has its foundations and testimonies in the Scripture
and that their fictions are rejected and refuted by the Scriptures. For on this
account they either rejected or corrupted the Scriptures, or complained that
they were insufficient.

For Irenaeus says, Bk. 3, ch. 2: “When they are rebuked from the
Scriptures, they turn and accuse the

Scriptures themselves as if they were neither right nor authoritative, both

because they do not always say things the same way and because the truth
cannot be found from them by those who do not know

the tradition, because it was not passed on in writing but orally.” Tertullian
says: “This sect does not accept certain of the Scriptures, and those which it
does accept it changes by additions and subtractions

to suit its own purpose; and if it receives them, it does not receive them
entire, etc.” Again he says:

“They say that the apostles did not want to reveal all things to all men, but
that they committed some

things openly and to all, other things secretly and to only a few, and that
Paul called this ‘the deposit.’”24

The reader realizes that the heretics, when they saw that they had been
clearly and firmly refuted from the Scriptures, began to dispute about the
authority of the Scriptures themselves: (1) that they were not correct and for
that reason ought not to be accepted; (2) that they did not always speak the
same way, so that no certain and firm meaning could be obtained from
them; (3) they did not accept all the

Scriptures but only certain ones, and also these not completely, but they
added much and took away much; (4) they argued that the truth could not
be found from the Scripture alone, unless the traditions

which were delivered by the apostles, not in writing but orally, were added
and used; (5) they taught that the apostles had entrusted some things openly
and to all, as in the case of the things which they made

known in their writings, but some things secretly and to only a few, and
from the latter they prove their

fictions. And because these latter are supposed to have the same authority
as the former, therefore they

say the Scriptures are to be explained and corrected according to the secret
and silent traditions which

were handed down not in writing but orally.

I report these things from Irenaeus and Tertullian in order that it may be
clear for what reason and purpose these fathers appealed to the traditions.
Because the heretics did not accept certain Scriptures,

or did not accept them completely, and accused them either of not being
right or of containing contradictory statements or of being insufficient, so
that the truth could not be found from them alone,

therefore, says Tertullian, we must not appeal to the Scriptures nor rest our
battle upon them, since no

victory or only an uncertain one can be gained from them against such
heretics. But does he mean that those articles of faith which were then in
dispute could not be defended against the heretics from the Scriptures or
that the corruptions of the heretics could not be refuted from them?
Certainly Irenaeus does this extensively, and in itself this is quite clear. But
concerning those heretics who cast doubt on

the authority of the Scriptures and placed the traditions in opposition to the
Scriptures, who quoted other Scriptures which had been altered through
additions and subtractions and claimed them to be the true
and original ones — it is of those heretics, I say, that Tertullian says this.
And he adds the reason, that it must be proved first with whom the truth of
the Scripture is found before appeal is made to the Scriptures themselves.
That this is Tertullian’s meaning is quite clear. Therefore the papalists act
wickedly when they twist a qualified statement of Tertullian into an
unqualified one, as if in religious

controversies no appeal at all were to be made to the Scriptures and as if in

disputes concerning dogmas

of faith either no victory at all or only an uncertain one could be hoped for
from the Scriptures. That this is altogether wrong has been shown above
from the consensus of all the fathers, and Tertullian never meant this.

7 Therefore, because the heretics kept on placing the traditions in

opposition to the Scriptures in such a way that they attempted to show from
the traditions: (1) that the Scriptures which the church had received as
canonical are not the true Scriptures and are not to be received in all their
parts; (2) that the truth cannot be understood from the Scripture because of
the variety, that is, ambiguity, or uncertainty

and obscurity; (3) that the truth cannot be learned from the Scriptures alone
unless also the traditions which were not delivered in writing but orally are
added; for beside those things which the apostles delivered publicly and to
all, which afterward they set down in writing, they also entrusted certain
other things secretly to only a few — because of all this, Irenaeus and
Tertullian refer the heretics to tradition.

And because traditions were paraded on both sides, they debate the question
what the true tradition of

the apostles is. They prove that that is the one and only truth which Christ
received from God and delivered to the apostles, which the apostles on their
part delivered to the churches, and which was guarded in the churches
through the succession of presbyters. And because at that time the truth of
apostolic teaching and of the Christian faith flourished chiefly in those
churches which had been founded by apostles, so that they still faithfully
kept and preserved the true stock for propagating the religion, therefore it
was certainly most appropriate to consider the order and agreement of these
churches in the doctrine. Rightly did Irenaeus then declare: “Even if no
writing had been left by the apostles, nevertheless, from that tradition which
the church had received from the apostles and which it

had preserved uncorrupted until that time, it could be learned what the true
apostolic doctrine was.” But

will the same be applicable to the papal church, so that whatever she holds
and preserves must be judged to be apostolic solely because of this name
[tradition], even though they cannot prove it with any

testimony of Scripture? The defenders of the Roman pontiff stoutly

maintain this, but we say, and the

obviousness of the matter confirms it, that there is a greater difference

between the primitive apostolic

church and the papal kingdom than there is between heaven and earth.
Therefore they must prove that

their church is apostolic before they can arrogate this privilege to

themselves.

8 But let us proceed with our investigation. We must pay attention to what
Irenaeus and Tertullian were proving from the tradition, which at that time
was one and the same in all apostolic churches and

to which they were appealing. It is certain, also according to the confession

of the papalists, I believe, that they were not putting forward from tradition
some doctrine which militates against the Scripture, for under this name
they were condemning the traditions which the heretics were spreading.
Therefore

this will be the question, whether Irenaeus and Tertullian were setting forth
and proving another and different doctrine than the one handed down in the
Scripture, that is, whether they argued and showed
that the church at that time had many teachings and mysteries of the faith
from traditions which could

not be proved with any testimony of Scripture. That this is the point of the
controversy between us and

the papalists we have already said repeatedly.

9 They both enumerate the points which they prove from tradition; they are
the very articles of faith which make up the Apostles’ Creed. There is no
doubt that these are taught in the Scripture in many clear passages.
Therefore they do not bring forward or prove any other dogma of faith from
tradition beside those which are contained in the Scripture; but they set
forth and prove also from tradition those

very same dogmas which are found in the Scripture. The reason, however,
why they appealed to tradition, although they had many and very firm
testimonies in Scripture, we have set forth above, namely, that they might
show the agreement between the true apostolic tradition and the Scripture.

Therefore they prove from the traditions the truth, the authority, and the
sufficiency of Scripture, because these are altogether the same dogmas of
faith which are contained in the Scripture and which

the primitive church had received from the tradition of the apostles and had
preserved pure until those

times. For not even one iota can be shown in the whole disputation of
Irenaeus and Tertullian about any

dogma which they put forth from tradition alone in such a way that it
cannot be proved by any testimony of Scripture.

10 And because these things most powerfully break down and overthrow
the talk of the papalists concerning the insufficiency of the Scripture and
concerning those traditions which they are unable to
prove with any testimony of Scripture, they must be considered carefully. I
have explained the point of

controversy in the case of Irenaeus and Tertullian in a simple manner, and I

do not see, if the whole dispute is considered, how any other meaning can
be derived from it than that it shows the agreement of

the apostolic tradition with the Scripture, so that it is the same doctrine
which Scripture hands down and which the primitive church had received
from the tradition of the apostles. This meaning the authors themselves
show in words that are not obscure. For Irenaeus afterward proves at length
from the Scripture the same thing that he had first shown from tradition. In
the beginning of that disputation [Bk.

3], ch. 1, he says: “The apostles indeed at that time preached the Gospel,
but afterwards they transmitted it to us by the will of God in the Scripture
that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith.” And in ch. 3 he says:
“That this Father of our Lord Jesus Christ was proclaimed by the churches
from the Scripture itself all who want to can learn and so understand the
apostolic tradition of the church.”

And in Bk. 4, ch. 6325 he says: “True knowledge consists of the doctrine of
the apostles and of the ancient constitution26 of the church in the whole
world and in the character of the body of Christ according to the
successions of bishops, to whom they [the apostles] committed the church
which is in

every place, which has come down to us, guarded without alteration by the
fullest use of the Scriptures;

it consists also of reading which suffers no omission, without falsification,

of legitimate and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scripture, without
endangering the sense, without blasphemy, and of the

chief gift, love, etc.” You hear that the ancient constitution of the church
and the apostolic doctrine came down to the time of Irenaeus through the
succession of the bishops and was preserved without alteration. But how?
He says it was done by the fullest use of the Scriptures and by the
exposition according to the legitimate Scriptures. He does not speak of
dogmas of faith which cannot be proved by

any testimony of Scripture.

The papalists constantly speak about the ancient constitution of the church
and the traditions delivered from hand to hand. But this is a glorious
statement of Irenaeus concerning the really ancient

constitution of the apostolic church and of how the apostolic tradition was
preserved without alteration.

Thus Tertullian says in De praescriptione: “But also the heretics work with
the Scriptures and seek to persuade from them. From what other source,”
says he, “could they speak about matters of faith except

from the writings of faith?” Again: “They believe without the Scriptures in
order that they may believe

against the Scriptures.” And afterward, in answering the fiction of the

heretics that the apostles had besides the things which they delivered
publicly and to all also entrusted certain other things secretly to only a few
and that Paul called this “the deposit,” Tertullian says: “What is this secret
deposit, that it

should be considered characteristic of another doctrine? Or is it a part of

that command concerning which he says: ‘This charge I commit to you,
Timothy,’ or of that precept of which he says: ‘I charge

you to keep the commandment’? What commandment, what charge he

means is understood from what

he writes before and after. But I am not ignorant of what they are hinting at
when they speak of a more

remote teaching.” Again he says: “When he says ‘this,’ he is speaking of

those things of which he was
writing at that time; but of hidden things, as being absent, if he had been
speaking to one who was in on

the secret, he would have said not ‘this’ but ‘that.’”

In ch. 36 he says: “Run through the apostolic churches, in which the thrones
of the apostles are still

occupied, in which their original writings are still publicly read, letting their
voices sound forth, making present the face of each one.” Again he says:
“You have Rome, and from there authority is available also to us. Let us see
what she has learned, what she has taught. She acknowledges one God, the
creator

of the universe, and Jesus Christ of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the
Creator, and the resurrection of

the flesh. She unites the Law and the Prophets with the writings of the
evangelists and apostles, and from there she draws her faith.” And soon
after he says of the heretics: “Because they purposed to teach

differently, necessity compelled them to arrange the instruments for

teaching differently. For they could

not have taught differently, if they had not had other means by which they
could teach heresy. And as

they could not have succeeded in corrupting the doctrine without corrupting
its instruments, so also integrity of the doctrine would not have been ours
without the integrity of the means by which the doctrine is set forth.”

Let the reader consider how Tertullian speaks about the Scripture in this
statement. After a few remarks he says concerning the Scripture: “What we
are, they are; from the beginning we are from them.” You see, reader, what
kind of comparison or “harmony” he makes between the Scriptures and the
primitive church, which holds the pure apostolic tradition. He says: “What
we are (namely, by holding the apostolic tradition), that the Scriptures are,
and we indeed are from them.” These are therefore, (so to say) two
equivalents or interchangeable terms: the ancient constitution of the church,

holding the genuine apostolic tradition, and the doctrines of Holy Scripture.

11 I have treated these things somewhat more extensively, first, because the
truncated statements which are quoted from Irenaeus and Tertullian may
disturb the reader unless their whole argument is set

forth for consideration; secondly, because from the argument of Irenaeus

and Tertullian our opinion concerning the authority, perfection, and
sufficiency of Scripture is most strongly defended and confirmed, and at the
same time the traditions of the papalists, of which they themselves confess
that

they cannot prove them with any testimony of Scripture, are refuted. For we
have shown that Irenaeus

and Tertullian prove the agreement of the apostolic tradition with the
Scripture, so that tradition may not be set in opposition to the Scripture, as
if the latter were wrong, ambiguous, or incomplete, for Irenaeus shows in
[Bk. 3,] ch. 2 that the heretics were maintaining this. But from tradition the
truth, the authority, the certainty, the perfection and sufficiency of Scripture
are proved and confirmed, so that the ancient

constitution of the church and the true tradition of the apostles is preserved
by the use and exposition of the Scriptures.

When, therefore, traditions are set forth which do not agree with the
Scripture and which cannot be

shown and proved from the Scripture, it is quite certain that they are not
apostolic. This is a firm and

clear foundation, which may be assailed and harassed by sophistical

arguments but cannot be shaken or
overthrown. For this reason I diligently commend to the reader this
disputation of Irenaeus and of Tertullian. What Tertullian says concerning
the doctrine of Christ and of the apostles, this we quite properly apply to the
Scriptures: for these are (as we have said) interchangeable terms. But this is
Tertullian’s statement: “When we believe, we desire to believe nothing
besides, for the first thing we believe is that there is nothing besides which
we should believe, etc.” This Tertullian says of the dogmas; of the customs
we shall speak a little later.

12 For the confirmation of what we have said so far also those things
contribute much which we have noted above from Eusebius, Bk. 5, ch. 20,
concerning the testimony of Irenaeus with respect to the traditions of
Polycarp, namely, that Polycarp told his disciples what he had received
from the apostles,

as from the living witnesses, about the Lord and about His miracles and
doctrine. What then? Was this

something else than what has been handed down in the Scripture? Did
Polycarp hand down certain dogmas as transmitted by and received from
the apostles, which could not be proved by any testimony

of Scripture? By no means, says Irenaeus, but he handed down “everything

in harmony with the Holy

Scriptures.” Such therefore were, are, and ought to be all traditions which
are put forth as apostolic. And they must always be examined, whether they
have that “agreement” of Irenaeus with the Holy Scripture.

If therefore someone asks with true and pious zeal what is the truly ancient
and apostolic tradition, it is not necessary to invent fables about purgatory,
holy water, and the like. For Irenaeus and Tertullian, in

that disputation about which we have already said so much, do not speak
only in general, but they show,

describe, and tell clearly in express words what the apostolic tradition is.
13 The oldest confessions of faith, which contain the sum of the apostolic
doctrine and tradition, are found in three places with Irenaeus and
Tertullian, which I shall copy out. For they show whence the Symbol was
taken which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed. Irenaeus, Bk. 3, ch. 4,
says that certain barbarian nations diligently preserved the ancient tradition
without reading and writing,

“believing in one God, the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is
therein, through Jesus Christ,

the Son of God, who on account of His surpassing love toward His creation
consented to be born of the

Virgin, Himself through Himself uniting man with God; He suffered under
Pontius Pilate, and rose again, and was received into glory; He will come in
glory, the Savior of those who are saved and the

Judge of those who are judged; and He will cast into eternal fire the
corrupters of the truth and the despisers of His Father and of His advent,
etc. If anyone would preach to these barbarians what has been invented in
addition by the heretics, they would at once close their ears and flee far
away. Thus,

through the ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not give entrance to the
extravagant fictions of the heretics, etc.”

This is the true and ancient tradition of the apostles which does not hand
down anything outside of

and beyond the Scripture but embraces the summary of the whole Scripture.

14 And in Bk. 1, ch. 2,27 Irenaeus similarly explains the apostolic

preaching. He says: “The church, planted in the whole world to the ends of
the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples this faith
which is in One God, the Father Almighty, who made heaven and earth, the
sea and
all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became
incarnate for our salvation; and

in the Holy Ghost, who by the prophets preached the counsels of God, the
Advent, and that birth which

is of the Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the
bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Jesus Christ, our Lord, and His
appearance from heaven in the glory of the Father, that before Christ Jesus,
our Lord, God, Savior, and King, according to the good pleasure of the

invisible Father, every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under
the earth, and every tongue

confess Him; and that He will hold a righteous judgment on all; that He will
cast into eternal fire the

wicked spirits, both the angels who sinned and became apostates and the
ungodly and unjust and wicked

and blasphemous men; but that He will give to the righteous and just, who
keep his commandments and

persevere in His love, some, indeed, from the beginning but some from the
time of their repentance, life

and incorruption as a gift and that He will clothe them with eternal glory.

“When the church has accepted this preaching and this faith, though she is
scattered throughout the

whole world, she diligently preserves it, as though she lived in one house,
and she believes these things

as if she had one soul and one heart, and she preaches these things
harmoniously and teaches and transmits them as if she possessed only one
mouth. For although there are different languages in the world,
nevertheless, the import of the tradition is one and the same. And the
churches which were
founded in Germany do not believe or teach differently than those which
are among the Iberians or those which are among the Celts or those which
are in the Orient or those which are in Egypt or those

which are in Lybia or those which are situated in the middle of the world.
But as the sun is one and the

same in the whole universe, so the light and preaching of the truth shines
everywhere and enlightens all

men who want to come to the knowledge of the truth, etc.” This, therefore,
is the apostolic tradition, this the true antiquity of the church, this the
universal consensus. And all the things which we accept and confess are in
agreement with the Holy Scriptures. Therefore we have the true and ancient
traditions of

the apostles. But the papalists prate about other trifles when they dispute
about traditions.

15 Tertullian, furthermore, says in De praescriptione: “The rule of faith is

that by which we believe that there is only one God, and no other beside the
Creator of the world, who has brought forth all things out of nothing
through His Word, sent out before all else; that this Word, called His Son,
appeared in the name of God in various times and ways to the patriarchs,
was always heard in the prophets, and was at last brought down by the
Spirit and power of God into the Virgin Mary, was made

flesh in her womb, and was born a man of her, and that He is Jesus Christ;
that He thereafter preached a

new law and a new promise of the kingdom of heaven, that He performed
miracles, was crucified, arose

again the third day, was taken into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the
Father; that in His stead He
sent the power of the Holy Spirit to move the believers; that He will come
in glory to take the saints into the enjoyment of eternal life and the heavenly
inheritance and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after both have
been quickened and their flesh restored. About this rule, which, as will be
proved,

was instituted by Christ, there are no questions among us except those

which are raised by heresies and

which make heretics.” 28

16 I have copied out these symbols in order to show that we do not reject
those things about which it is certain that they are true and ancient traditions
of the apostles. The Council of Trent, however (and

this must be noted), has for this reason separated the confession of the
Symbol from the traditions, that

we might know that they are not chiefly contending about the true, certain,
and ancient traditions of the

apostles and of the church but about other things which they thrust on us for
the strengthening of the papal rule under the name and pretext of apostolic
traditions. And Andrada pronounces the anathema on

those who say: “Unless we are manifestly instructed from the Old and the
New Testament, we shall not

follow the teaching of the fathers and the tradition of the church.”

24 The reference is to 1 Tim. 6:20. Where the RSV translates “what has
been entrusted to you,” the Vulgate has depositum.

25 This is obviously a wrong reference, since Book 4 has only 41 chapters.

The quotation is found Bk.

4, ch. 33, par. 8.

26 The word here rendered “constitution” seeks to give the meaning of the
Greek word

, which

Irenaeus himself used. The Latin interpreter rendered it status, and the
English translator of St. Irenaeus in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, I (Buffalo:
The Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950), 508, translates: “the ancient
constitution of the church.” The term constitution is here used in the sense
of composition, makeup.

27 The reference should be to Bk. 1, ch. 10.

28 The quotation is from De praescriptione, ch. 13.

SECTION IV

The Fourth Kind of Traditions

1 The fourth kind of traditions is concerning the exposition, the true sense,
or natural meaning of the Scripture. It is certain from Irenaeus and from
Tertullian that their dispute with the heretics was not only concerning the
Scripture but also concerning the exposition, or meaning, of the Scripture.
For Tertullian

says: “This sect, even if it receives Scriptures as complete up to a point,

nevertheless twists them by inventing different interpretations. And a false
interpretation hinders the truth as much as one who corrupts the text.”
Again he says: “Where diversity of doctrine is found, there we must suspect
corruption both of the Scripture and of the exposition.”

Irenaeus shows that the heretics expounded the Scripture not as it speaks in
clear and easy passages

but that they constructed some false and strange things from figurative,
parabolic, and obscure passages,
by which they then escaped from the manifest and clear texts. And they
pretended to have received these interpretations from tradition which had
been passed on not in writing but orally. Irenaeus writes

this in Bk. 3, ch. 2, and Bk. 2, ch. 3529 and the following chapters. And
Tertullian says: “They rest upon the things which have their origin from
ambiguity.” Since the heretics in this conflict concerning the legitimate
exposition, or concerning the true and natural sense of the Scripture, cover
their interpretations with the title of traditions, Irenaeus and Tertullian
appeal to the true tradition of the church. For there is no doubt that the
primitive church received from the apostles, and from apostolic

men, not only the text (as we say) of the Scripture but also its legitimate and
natural interpretation. And because the primitive church had preserved this
interpretation until that time without falsification, so that she could prove
by sure documents from whom she had received it, and so could go back to
the apostles themselves, that was, indeed, a most happy consideration by
which pious minds were greatly

strengthened against the corruptions of the heretics.

2 But before we proceed, we must return to the point at issue in this our
disputation concerning traditions, namely, whether Irenaeus and Tertullian
in that disputation concerning the interpretation of the Scripture put forward
any dogma or any interpretation from the traditions outside of and beyond
Scripture, which cannot be proved by any testimony of Scripture. Certainly
Irenaeus says in Bk. 4, ch.

63, 30 that legitimate exposition is according to the Scriptures. And in Bk.

2, chs. 46 and 4731 he gives a number of rules about the interpretation of
Scripture from which it can be perceived what is the truly

apostolic tradition concerning the interpretation of the Scripture.

1. He says that a sound sense and one without peril is the one which is
given clearly and unambiguously by the very statements in the Scriptures.
However he adds: “All the Scriptures, both the
prophetic and the evangelical, can be heard clearly and without ambiguity
and in the same way by all.”

Again he says: “We have as the rule the truth itself and the testimony placed
in the open by God,” that

is, as Augustine says, “in the clear passages of Scripture all the things are
found which contain the faith, and rules for living.”

2. But what is stated in the Scriptures ambiguously in parables, not clearly

nor expressly nor without

controversy, is not to be interpreted contrary to what is stated clearly, nor is

anything to be construed from it which cannot be proved from other
passages in which clear language is used. For this reason he

approves of the exercise of investigating passages of this kind, however, in

such a way that we do not

depart from the advice which is most clearly proclaimed, that is, he wants
the dark passages of Scripture

explained from those and according to those which are very clearly stated in
the Scripture.

3. He wants the interpretation carried on in such a way that the body of the
truth remains whole, with

all the members harmoniously fitted together and without violent clashing;
that is, the interpreter ought

to set before himself the whole body of the doctrine which is transmitted in
the Scriptures, in order that the interpretation may not go against it. And it
appears that he wants the same thing as Tertullian says:

that the fewer things are to be interpreted according to the more, and what
Paul demands in Rom. 12:6:

that prophecy should be according to the analogy of faith.

4. There are many mysteries in Scripture which we cannot search out in our
present infirmity.

Therefore he says: “If we cannot find solutions of all the things which call
for solutions in the Scriptures, let us not for this reason seek another God,”
that is, as he had said previously, “let us not depart from that meaning
which is clearly declared in the Scriptures. In this way let us by the grace of

God solve some things in the Scriptures, but other things let us commit to
God not only in this world but

also in the next.” And finally he concludes: “If in this way we commit some
questions to God, we shall

both preserve our faith, and the whole Scripture given us by God will be
found by us to be harmonious;

the parables will agree with those things which are clearly stated, and the
clear statements will explain

the parables; through the many ways in which things are said we shall feel
in us one harmonious melody.”

3 These rules of interpretation I have noted here from Irenaeus on the one
hand because they are profitable and beautiful and taken from the apostolic
tradition, on the other hand also, and chiefly, that I might show that the
ancient tradition of the apostolic and primitive church concerning the
interpretation

of the Scripture did not lead people away from the Scripture and did not, in
the interpretation, fashion

any dogmas outside of and beyond the Scripture which cannot be proved by
any testimony of Scripture

but that the sound sense of the Scripture was established and taken from the
Scriptures themselves and

according to the Scriptures.

4 Also this pertains chiefly to the apostolic traditions concerning
interpretation, which Irenaeus and Tertullian relate and describe when they
appeal in the matter of the truth of certain interpretations to the tradition of
the apostles, which had until then been preserved pure in the churches.
They tell and describe what this tradition is, namely, the symbol or rule of
faith whose words we have copied under

the third kind of traditions. Nothing is found there without, outside of, and
beyond the Scripture, but as Irenaeus says of the traditions of Polycarp:
“AH things are in harmony with the Scriptures.”

5 These genuine, ancient, and true traditions of the apostles we embrace

with deepest reverence. For we confess that we accept in true faith all the
writings of the prophets and apostles and that in their own natural meaning
as it is expressed in the Apostolic, Nicene, and Athanasian Symbols. We
also steadfastly condemn all wild fancies which conflict with the Symbols
and which have been condemned

by the true judgments of the church. Tertullian calls the Symbol the rule of
faith, according to which, if it is preserved and kept in its proper form, one
can study in the Scripture and inquire in it if anything

seems to be either ambiguous or obscure. Thus Augustine, when he was

about to expound Genesis, placed the articles of faith at the beginning, in
order that in the explanation of the most difficult questions it could not be
said that he had erred, so long as he had not said anything contrary to this
rule of faith but only what agrees with it, even though he might perhaps not
have reached the sense and the

mysteries of the words everywhere or might seem not to have done justice
to the questions in all respects.

Irenaeus also, Bk. 1, ch. 3,32 says concerning that rule of faith which we
have described above: “The person who is well versed in speech among the
leaders in the church will not say anything different from this, neither will
he that is weak in speech belittle the tradition.” And in ch. 433 he
enumerates what were, so to say, the common points in the explanations of
the more learned, namely, to search out
what was said in the parables and to add this to the contents of the truth; to
speak of the plan of God put

into operation in the human race; to discuss the fall of angels and men; to
proclaim why one and the same God made some things temporal, some
eternal, some earthly, some heavenly; why the invisible God in the Old
Testament appeared now in one form, now in another; concerning the
difference between the Old and the New Testament; why God has
concluded all under unbelief that He might have

mercy on all; why the Word of God was made flesh and why He did not
appear in the beginning but in

the last times; concerning the end of the world; concerning future things
predicted in the Scripture; concerning the resurrection, the calling of the
Gentiles, etc.

6 Since therefore we receive and accept all the things which Irenaeus and
Tertullian quote from the tradition of the apostles concerning the legitimate
exposition and the true sense of the Scriptures, we cannot be accused of
neglecting or repudiating the true, genuine, and ancient traditions of the
apostles.

But we confess that we reject what the papalists demand for themselves, for
they want us simply to receive any and all interpretations which they thrust
on us out of the shrine of the papal heart or from

the decrees of the prelates of the church, without clear and certain proofs
and documentation from the

Holy Scripture. For this is not a part of the apostolic tradition, as we have
already shown.

29 The correct reference is Bk. 2, ch. 27.

30 The correct reference is Bk. 4, ch. 33, par. 8.

31 An incorrect reference. Irenaeus discusses the proper mode of
interpreting parables and obscure passages in Bk. 2, ch. 27.

32 The correct reference is Bk. 1, ch. 10.

33 The correct reference is Bk. 1, ch. 10, par. 3.

SECTION V

The Fifth Kind of Traditions

1 We shall make this the fifth kind of traditions, that the fathers sometimes
call those dogmas traditions which are not set forth in so many letters and
syllables in Scripture but are brought together from clear

testimonies of Scripture by way of good, certain, firm, and clear reasoning.

Gregory Nazianzen says correctly and beautifully that some things are in
the Scriptures and are also stated in them, but that some things are in the
Scriptures, although they are not stated. The same author, in Bk. 5 of De
theologia, quotes the objection of the heretics who deny that the Holy Spirit
is God. “From where,” say they, “do

you bring in this strange God to us, who is nowhere named in the words of
Scripture?” He replies: “The

fact that the Father is unbegotten is not stated in so many syllables in the
Scripture but is nevertheless concluded from the things that are written: as
when I say twice five, I do not say ten, nevertheless, when I conclude from
this and say ten, I speak correctly; so also if something is expressed in
Scripture, I do

right if I declare it and give it a name.” Thus Origen, in Bk. 5 on Romans,

says: “The church has received the tradition from the apostles to bestow
Baptism also on infants.” He also says in Homily 8 on

Leviticus that Baptism is bestowed also on infants, in accordance with the

practice of the church.
Augustine also says concerning the baptism of infants, De baptismo contra
Donatistas, Bk. 4, ch. 23:

“The whole church holds this tradition.” And he adds: “What the whole
church holds, and what has not

been instituted by councils but has always been observed, we believe most
correctly to have been transmitted in no other way than by apostolic
authority.” And in De verbis apostoli, Sermon 12, his statement concerning
the baptism of infants is: “This [infant baptism] the authority of our mother,
the

church, holds; this the canon founded on truth maintains.”

2 Therefore Origen and Augustine affirm that infant baptism is an apostolic

tradition. This we accept.

But let us look back at the issue of our dispute with the papalists about
traditions, namely, whether they affirm that it is such a tradition which
cannot be proved by any testimony of Scripture. These letters and syllables
are indeed not found in the Scripture: “Infants are to be baptized; the
apostles baptized infants.” But when the fathers say that infant baptism is a
tradition, they prove and confirm this with certain and clear testimonies of
Scripture.

3 And because Lindanus mocks us with this tradition, as if we received

some dogma of faith without

testimonies of Scripture, solely on the strength of an unwritten tradition, I

shall copy here a few testimonies of the ancients, because they prove and
confirm the tradition that infants are to be baptized

with very many testimonies of Scriptures. For Augustine says: “And if

anyone seeks for divine authority in this matter, although we very rightly
believe that what the universal church holds was handed down in no other
way than by apostolic authority, nevertheless, we can truthfully conclude
from
the circumcision of the flesh what benefit the Sacrament of Baptism has for
infants, etc.”

When Origen says that it is a tradition of the apostles to bestow Baptism on

infants, he immediately

adds: “For those to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries were
committed knew that there is in all

people the inborn filth of sin, which must be washed away by water and the
Spirit, for which reason also

the body is called the body of sin.”

Irenaeus says in Bk. 2, ch. 39: “Christ came to save all through Himself, all,
I say, that are through

Him born again to God, infants, little children, children, youths, and old
people.”

Origen, in Homily 14 on Luke, says: “How can there be any reason for the
baptism of little children

except according to this understanding: No one is free from defilement,

even if he has lived but one day on the earth. And because through the
Sacrament of Baptism the filth of our birth is removed, therefore

also little children are baptized. For unless one is born again of water and of
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

Cyprian, Bk. 3, epistle 8, proves infant baptism from this: “Since the Lord
says in the Gospel: ‘The

Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them,’ so far as
lies in us, and it can be

done, no soul must be destroyed. For God looks neither at the person nor at
the age.”
Chrysostom says in his homily on Adam and Eve: “For this reason the
catholic church preaches that

little children ought to be baptized, because of original sin, concerning

which that most holy man well

exclaimed: ‘I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother

conceive me.’”

Ambrose, Bk. 10, epistle 89, says: “The Pelagians make void infant
baptism, although John testifies:

‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.’” Again he
says: “As now the institution of the Savior remains in the church, who says:
‘Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of
God,’ so precaution was taken in the Law in connection with circumcision

that, unless a person was circumcised on the eighth day, he was to be

banished, etc.”

Augustine says in Letter No. 89: “They say that an unbaptized infant cannot
perish, because it is born

without sin. But the teacher of the Gentiles, in whom Christ was speaking,
says: ‘Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and
so death spread to all men because all men sinned.’

Again: ‘The judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but

the free gift following many

trespasses brings justification.’ Therefore those, 34 if perchance they have

found an infant which has not been procreated through the concupiscence of
that one man, may say that it is not subject to damnation

and that it does not need to be delivered from that damnation through the
grace of Christ. Therefore the

baptism of infants is not superfluous, because those who are by their

generation subject to this condemnation are by regeneration freed from that
same condemnation. But no human being can be found who is spiritually
regenerated without Christ.”

4 These statements of the ancients I have reviewed in order that the reader
may see for himself that infant baptism is called a tradition by them in such
a way that they prove and confirm it with very many

certain and firm testimonies of Scripture. For the apostles were commanded
to baptize all nations; it is

written that they baptized whole households, or families, in which without

doubt there were included also infants, whom Christ commands to be
brought to Him. Andrada mocks us with the testimony of Augustine, who
says in De baptismo contra Donatistas, Bk. 2, ch. 7: “The practice (not to
rebaptize such as had already been baptized by heretics) comes, I believe,
from apostolic tradition, even as many

things are not found in their writings nor in the councils of later times, and
yet, because they are observed throughout the whole church, are believed to
have been handed down and commended by none other than them.”

And of the same dispute he says in Contra Cresconium, Bk. 1, ch. 33:
“Although no example is adduced from the canonical Scriptures for this
sure matter, the truth of the same Scriptures is held fast

by us also in this matter when we do that which has pleased the whole
church which the authority of the

same Scripture commends, so that, since the Holy Scripture cannot deceive,
whoever fears that he may

be deceived by the obscurity of this question, may consult the same church
about this matter, to which

the Holy Scripture points without ambiguity, etc.”

5 With these statements they can practice deception on those to whom the
complete disputation of Augustine is unknown. But the question of
Augustine here is this, whether an example can be produced

from the canonical Scriptures, either where someone coming from the
heretics was baptized again or where someone was received after
repentance by the laying on of hands, without the repetition of baptism.
And he confesses that an actual example can be produced from the
Scripture for neither side.

But disputing de jure (to use this expression) which opinion is true and
which false, I ask Andrada,

whether Augustine leans solely on custom and the name of the unwritten
tradition in such a way that this custom and tradition of the church cannot
be proved and confirmed by any testimony of Scripture.

For this is the point of our argument with the papalists. Indeed, they misuse
these statements of Augustine to bolster their traditions, which they cannot
prove with any testimony of Scripture; but with

great impudence they are clearly wronging Augustine. For he proves his
position in an extended discussion with many testimonies of Scripture. And
because it might seem as if these statements of Augustine attribute rather
much to tradition and the custom of the church without testimonies of
Scripture, I shall copy certain passages from this disputation of Augustine,
which will show that he by

no means followed a tradition or custom which cannot be proved by any

testimony of Scripture.

In De baptismo contra Donatistas, Bk. 1, ch. 7, he says: “Lest I seem to

operate with human arguments, I shall produce certain proofs from the
Gospel.” In Bk. 2, ch. 14: “It is difficult to judge what is more harmful, not
to be baptized, or to be rebaptized. Nevertheless, returning to the scale of
the Lord, where the importance of things is weighed not according to
human opinion but by divine authority, I find the judgment of the Lord
concerning both: ‘He who has been washed does not need to
wash again’ and ‘Unless one is born of water, etc’ Finally, the church itself
holds it so delivered, etc.”

In Bk. 3, ch. 4, he says: “I would certainly have gone over to the opinion of
Cyprian if the great authority of others had not recalled me to a more
diligent consideration, not because it could not happen

that in a very obscure question one or a few might think more correctly than
a larger number but because judgment should not easily be rendered in
favor of one or of a few against innumerable men of

the same religion and unity unless matters have been studied and examined
as thoroughly as strength permits.”

In Bk. 4, ch. 6, he says: “That custom is rightly believed to have been

transmitted by the apostles, which also the men of that time, when they
thought the matter over, did not see as something instituted

by later ones.” But he soon adds, ch. 7: “How much more strongly we now
say: ‘What the custom of the

church has always held and what a plenary council has confirmed, that we
follow. Add to this that when

we have carefully examined the reasons of both sides of the disputation and
the testimonies of the Scripture, it can also be said: ‘We follow that which
the truth has declared.’”

In Bk. 5, ch. 4, he says: “Whoever understands from the custom of the

church, from the later power

of a plenary council, from so many great testimonies of the Holy Scriptures,

and from the clear reasons

of truth that the Baptism of Christ has been consecrated by the words of the
Gospel will not be corrupted by the perversity of any and every person,
etc.”
In Bk. 5, ch. 23: “The apostles, indeed, did not therefore command
anything, but it is to be believed

that this custom had its origin from their tradition, as there are many things
which the entire church holds, and because of this it is well to believe that
they were commanded by the apostles, although they

are not found written.” But hear what he soon adds: “It is against the
command of God that such as come from the heretics, if they have already
there received the Baptism of Christ, should be baptized

again, because it is not only shown but clearly shown by testimonies of the
Holy Scriptures, etc.”

In ch. 26 we read: “But that Cyprian admonishes us that we should run back
to the fountain, that is, to

the apostolic tradition, and that we should direct a channel from there to our
times, is very good and should be done without hesitation. It has, therefore,
been delivered to us, as he himself says, that there is one God, one
Baptism,” and in Bk. 6, ch. 1: “It might suffice that we have shown with
reasons so often

repeated and with added proofs from the divine Scriptures, etc.”

6 These things I have repeated more fully from Augustine than might
perhaps seem necessary. But because in this disputation he makes mention
of tradition a number of times, it had to be shown that what the papalists
make of this is false, namely, that many things must be believed from
tradition alone

which cannot be proved with any testimony of Scripture. For Augustine,

who concedes that no actual

example is found in the Scripture, nevertheless shows that the law itself (if I
may express it this way)
has many sure proofs in the Scriptures. We do not quarrel about letters and
syllables, so long as the matter itself has a sure foundation in the Scripture.
And we concede that it lends great strength when the custom and tradition
of the church agree with sure and clear testimonies of Scripture. But this is
the point of the controversy between us and the papalists, whether in
dogmas of the church a custom or tradition which cannot be proved with
any testimony of Scripture is to be accepted, for I am always repeating the
words of Andrada.

7 To this fifth kind of traditions belong many disputations of the ancients

about dogmas which actually have sure and firm testimonies in Scripture,
even though they are not expressed in so many letters and syllables; as, that
the Son is

(“of one substance”) with the Father. The Arians,

indeed, disturbed the world with their calamitous noises, asserting that no
dogma is to be accepted outside of those which are written; for this reason
they said the

must be rejected, because it is

“unwritten.” But the fathers did not in this debate set up this axiom in
opposition to the Arians, that many dogmas which cannot be proved by any
testimony of Scripture must be accepted and believed merely because of the
name “tradition,” but they simply replied that even though the word is not
found

in Scripture, the matter itself nevertheless has the most reliable testimonies
of Scripture. Thus Athanasius, in Vol. 2, in a speech which maintains that
the decrees of the Nicene Council are set forth in suitable and pious words,
says: “Although these expressions are not found in Scripture, nevertheless,
they have that meaning which the Scriptures intend.”

And Cyril, in De Trinitate, Bk. 1, answers to the objection that the

homoousion is “unwritten”: “The matter itself which is designated by that
word has the most certain testimonies of Scripture, as when one

says that God is incorporeal.” The same is true of the personal union, the
two natures in Christ, and similar points. For it is false to say that the
church has those dogmas without testimonies of Scripture,

solely from the tradition of the fathers. The “wars of words,” however, of
those who merely fight about

words, while the matter itself has testimonies of Scripture, they rightly
condemn.

8 There are many such examples of ways of speaking received from the
fathers, where the matters themselves are most firmly grounded in
Scripture. Thus Basil proves the Godhead of the Holy Spirit from the
testimonies of Holy Scripture and adds also the consensus of antiquity. But
the formula of glorification “Glory be to the Father and to the Son together
with the Holy Ghost” he proves from the

tradition of the fathers, which nevertheless agrees with the teaching of

Scripture. And yet that formula

received from tradition has now been changed, for we say: “Glory be to the
Father and to the Son and to

the Holy Ghost,” because the conjunction “and” agrees better with the
words of the institution of Baptism than the preposition “with.” Thus the
traditions are shaped according to the Scripture and give

way to the Scripture. Gregory Nazianzen, in De theologia, Bk. 5, says:

“‘Zeal for the letter’ is a cloak, or pretext, of impiety.” This Lindanus
corrupts by treating it as if Gregory meant that it is impiety to be so bound
to Scripture that no dogma is received which cannot be proved with
testimonies of Scripture,

although Gregory himself extensively proves the dogma of the Godhead of

the Holy Spirit, which he treats there, with many testimonies of Scripture.
But he criticizes those who, when they do not find written in so many letters
and syllables in Scripture: “The Holy Spirit is God, of the same essence
with

the Father and the Son,” although that dogma is firmly proved by other sure
testimonies of Scripture,

employ sophistical evasions of the issue in order to be able to hide their

own impiety over against the

meaning of Scripture under some pretext. For this reason he calls it zeal not
for the Scripture but for the letter, not

but

. And this is what Epiphanius says against the Apostolici:35 “They

allow only those things which are stated in so many letters and syllables in
Scripture.”

34 Reference is to those who deny infant baptism.

35 The Apostolici were a gnostic sect of the second to the fourth century of
the Christian era. They were known for their asceticism.

SECTION VI

The Sixth Kind of Traditions

1 As the sixth kind of traditions we set down what is said of the catholic
consensus of the fathers. For it is a common form of speech to say: “The
fathers handed it down this way.” But Andrada wrongs us in
that he clamors that we disregard the testimony of antiquity altogether, that
we count the authority of the fathers as nothing, that we overthrow the
approbation, faith, and majesty of the church. For we can affirm with a
good conscience that we have, after reading the Holy Scripture, applied
ourselves and yet

daily apply ourselves to the extent that the grace of the Lord permits to
inquiry into and investigation of the consensus of the true and purer
antiquity. For we assign to the writings of the fathers their proper

and, indeed, honorable place which is due them, because they have clearly
expounded many passages of

Scripture, have defended the ancient dogmas of the church against new
corruptions of heretics, and have

done so on the basis of Scripture, have correctly explained many points of

doctrine, have recorded many

things concerning the history of the primitive church, and have usefully
called attention to many other

things. And we long for this, that in the life to come we may see what we
believe and hope concerning

the grace of God on account of His Son, the Redeemer, as members of the
true catholic church; that we

may see (I say) the Son of God Himself, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles,
martyrs, and fathers, who held to the true foundation, and may enjoy
intimate friendship with them to all eternity.

2 Therefore we examine with considerable diligence the consensus of the

true, learned, and purer antiquity, and we love and praise the testimonies of
the fathers which agree with the Scripture. For it is the opinion of the men
on our side that in religious controversies the Word of God itself is the
judge and that the confession of the true church is added later. For some
pious men always follow the Word as the
judge, and the weak are aided by the confession of the stronger. That
teaching, therefore, has standing in the church which agrees with the Word
of God and the confession of the godly, regardless whether they

are more or fewer than the ungodly.

Thus the ancients condemned Paul of Samosata and then Arius. The judge
was the Word of God, that

is, the testimonies from the Gospel, presented in good faith and without
sophistry, which convince anyone who does not judge falsely. But also at
that time the weak were aided in their judgment by the

confession of the stronger, who had heard the apostles or their disciples and
of whom it was certain that

they had been faithful guardians of the doctrine, such as Polycarp, Irenaeus,
Gregory of Neocaesarea.

From these the younger generation had heard, that

(“Word”) means the Person. Later, after a

comparison of the statements of the Gospel, they themselves acknowledge

that this is the natural meaning which they had heard from them. Some also
not only learn from the earlier ones but are also

strengthened as by the stronger. Thus Peter of Alexandria refuted Meletius:

he quoted from the Gospel,

which teaches clearly enough that the fallen who mend their ways are to be
received. But at the same

time he was helped by the examples of the earlier church, which previously
had always received the fallen. So we judge concerning infant baptism. We
have clear testimonies in the Scriptures which affirm

that outside of the church there is no salvation. Then we are also supported
by the testimonies of the first church. Thus the judge is the Word of God
and to this is added the confession of the pure antiquity.

For God wants to have the ministry of the Word in the church; therefore the
church must be heard as the

teacher; but faith and worship rest on the Word of God, not on human
authority.

These things are copied from the Loci communes of Philip Melanchthon,
my teacher; I wanted to add

them in this place in order that I might place opposite the clamors of
Andrada the public testimony of our churches, how reverently we think
about the consensus of antiquity, about the testimonies of the ancients, and
about the confession and examples of the ancient church.

3 We approve of the pious and beautiful statement of Basil, who says in a

homily against the Sabellians and Arius: “I would like very much to pass
this on to my hearers in the same simple way in

which I received it handed down to me; but since you surround me as

judges rather than as pupils, it is

necessary that we, as in a court trial, prolong our reply. But we urge you
that you seek to hear from us

not what pleases you but what pleases the Lord and agrees with the
Scriptures and is not contrary to the

fathers.” And a little later he says: “May this tradition restrain you: Thus the
Lord taught, the apostles preached, the fathers preserved, the martyrs
confirmed; be content to speak as you have been taught.”

And of the confession of faith he says: “I shall hand on what I have learned
from the divine Scripture.”

Athanasius says toward the end of his De humanitate Verbi: “We have
drawn this from the divinely inspired teachers who have read the sacred
books.”
4 We confess also that we disagree with those who invent opinions which
have no testimony from any period in the church, as Servetus, Campanus,
the Anabaptists, and others have done in our time. We

also hold that no dogma that is new in the churches and in conflict with all
of antiquity should be accepted. What could be more honorably said and
thought concerning the consensus and the testimonies

of antiquity?

Irenaeus writes to Florinus: “These dogmas, Florinus, have no sound

meaning; these dogmas depart

from the church; these dogmas not even the heretics would ever have dared
to proclaim; these dogmas

the presbyters who were before us and who were also disciples of the
apostles have not handed down.”

These things are from Eusebius, Bk. 5, ch. 20.

5 But we confess also this, which we have not invented ourselves but have
learned from the fathers: that we search out and quote the testimonies of the
fathers, not as though the things which are shown

and proved from clear testimonies of Scripture were either not certain or not
firm enough in themselves

or did not of themselves possess enough strength and authority unless also
the consensus of the fathers

were added; but the reason why they are quoted Augustine clearly explains
in De peccatorum mentis, Bk. 3, ch. 7: “This I have mentioned not because
we should rely on the opinions of any and all disputers

as on canonical authority but that it may be clear that from the beginning
until the present time in which this new thing has arisen this teaching about
original sin has been guarded in the faith of the church with such great
constancy that by those who treated the words of the Lord it was used as the
surest way to

refute other false things, rather than that anyone should have tried to refute
it as false. Besides, the clearest and fullest authority for this statement lives
in the sacred canonical books.” The same author says in De nuptiis et
concupiscentia, Bk. 2, ch. 29: “But what shall I say of the expounders of the
divine Scriptures who have flourished in the catholic church, how they did
not try to turn this to other meanings, because they were steadfast in the
most ancient and most vigorous faith and were not moved

by the new error? If I wanted to collect these and make use of their
testimony, it would both be too long, and I would perhaps appear to have
encroached more than I should have on the canonical authors, from

whom we must not be turned aside.”

In Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum, Bk. 4, ch. 8, Augustine says: “Not

as though the authority of any disputation should be equated with the
canonical books but in order that those who believe that the

holy fathers say a certain thing may be reminded how the catholic teachers
followed the divine oracles

concerning these matters before the new idle talk of the heretics; and that
they may know that the true

and anciently founded catholic faith is being defended by us against the

recent audacity and destruction

of the Pelagians.”

6 The other thing which we hold concerning the authority of the fathers we
have also learned from

the fathers themselves. Augustine, in Letter No. 19, to Jerome, says: “Other
writers (besides the
canonical) I read in such a way that, no matter how great they are in
holiness or learning, I do not consider a thing true because they have
thought it so but because they have been able to persuade me

either through other canonical authors or by some credible reason that they
do not depart from the truth.”

In Letter No. 111 he says: “We ought not to consider the reasonings of any
individuals, be they ever

so catholic and praiseworthy, as we do the canonical writings, so that we

would not be permitted, without injury to the honor that is due these men, to
disapprove and reject something in their writings, if perhaps we have found
that they thought otherwise than truth is, as it has been understood with
divine

help either by others or by us. I deal with the writings of others as I want
others to deal with mine.”

In Contra Cresconium, Bk. 2, ch. 31, he says: “The canon of the canonical
books was drawn up that

we might, according to them, freely judge concerning other writings of

either believers or unbelievers.”

In ch. 32 he says: “I do not hold the letters of Cyprian as canonical, but I

evaluate them by the canonical ones; and what in them agrees with the
authority of the divine Scriptures I receive with his compliments, but what
does not agree I reject with his permission.” And he adds: “Because what
you

quote is not canonical, I refuse to accept what does not agree, according to
the liberty to which the Lord has called us.” And later: “So I do not accept
this opinion of Cyprian, that heretics are to be rebaptized, although I am
incomparably inferior to Cyprian; as also I do not accept the opinion of the
apostle Peter
where he forced the gentiles to judaize, nor do I act upon it, although I am
incomparably inferior to Peter.” In ch. 31 he says that in this manner he
does no wrong to Cyprian. And in De baptismo contra

Donatistas, Bk. 7, ch. 20, he says: “As many of us as love Cyprian believe
without any reproach to him that he could have thought otherwise than the
truth demanded.” Cyprian himself also, in a sermon on

the fallen, says that he slanders the dignity of the martyrs who says that the
martyrs command something which is not written in the Law of the Lord.
Augustine, Ad Vincentium Victorem, Bk. 2, says:

“I neither can nor should deny that, as in my larger works, so also in so

many of my smaller ones, there

is so much which can be criticized with just judgment and without

rashness.”

And in De dono perseverantiae, ch. 21, he says: “I would want nobody to

embrace all my statements

in such a way that he will follow me except in those things in which he has
seen that I do not err. For

this reason I now write my books of retractions, to show that I also have not
followed myself in all things.” And he adds that not even after his retraction
does he want to be believed in everything. For he

says: “I speak more arrogantly than truly, if even now I say that I have
already at my present age arrived at perfection without any error in writing.
But it makes a difference how much and in what things one

errs and how readily one corrects it, or with what degree of stubbornness
one tries to defend an error.”

Thus Epiphanius asks forgiveness if he has erred anywhere or attempted

anything beyond his strength.
Ambrose also in De officiis, Bk. 1, very modestly says: “For I think that I
shall seem arrogant if I conceive a desire to teach among sons. I hope to
attain not the grace of the prophets nor the strength of

the evangelists nor the foresight of the pastors, but only application to and
love for the divine Scriptures.”

Justin replies, in question 119, to the objection that certain fathers had
thought differently: “But the

apostle, the father of the fathers, says, etc.” Let the reader observe that the
opinion of these fathers is that a thing should not be believed or accepted
because someone of the fathers either thought or said so,

unless he proves what he says from the canonical Scriptures, that the fathers
could have thought differently from what truth demands, and that we have
been called by the Lord to that liberty that we

may freely judge about the writings of any and all persons according to the
canonical writings, and that

when we disapprove of anything in the writings of the fathers which does

not agree with the Scripture

and reject it, this is done without rashness but by a just judgment, without
injury and disgrace to the fathers, without prejudice to their honor, and with
their consent, and that this is done by those also who are incomparably
inferior to the fathers.

7 We have besides also the examples of the fathers themselves, who indeed
do not impudently ridicule the errors of the ancients if they departed
anywhere from the rule of Scripture but nevertheless

also do not out of respect for the fathers approve or accept what does not
agree with the canon of the

Scripture. And that I may demonstrate this more fittingly, I do not think that
it will be useless if I briefly indicate here certain ways, or rules, which I
have observed during my reading, how the fathers did not

twist the things which were ineptly said by the ancients into a defense of
error but mitigated and excused them by a suitable interpretation according
to the analogy of faith. The Pelagians, however, caused much trouble
especially for Augustine by heaping up many ineptly expressed statements
of the

ancients about original sin and about free will. But Augustine replies with
moderation:

I. “When you Pelagians were not yet causing contention, the fathers spoke
less carefully about these

articles” ( Contra Julianum, Bk. 1), that is, outside of contention, when
controversies had not yet arisen, the fathers frequently discussed many
things not with precision but in a more carefree way. But these

less careful statements must not, as Augustine says, be twisted for a

protection of things that do not agree with the Scripture.

II. Julian had raised as an objection the statement of Chrysostom that

infants have no sin. Augustine

says: “Understand ‘sins of their own,’ and there will be no quarrel.” But
Julian says: “Why does not Chrysostom himself add ‘of their own’?” “Why,
do we think,” he says, “if not because he was speaking

in the catholic church and believed that he would not be understood

differently?” that is, the inept statements of the fathers must be interpreted
according to the analogy of faith. In this way Augustine, in De natura et
gratia, fits statements of Hilary, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Jerome which
Pelagius had quoted in confirmation of his error to the analogy of faith by
adding a suitable interpretation. However,

he was not always able to take this interpretation from the statements which
were quoted, but he obtained them either from clear statements of Scripture
or from other sayings of the fathers which agreed with the Scripture. In De
gratia Christi, Bk. 1, ch. 48, Augustine replies to the statement of Ambrose,
who proves by the example of Zacharias and Elizabeth that a person can be
without sin in this

life: “This is spoken, as far as I can see, according to a certain laudable

conduct among men, not according to the perfection of righteousness. For
Paul also says that he was without blame, and yet he

counted this righteousness as dung.”

And in De natura et gratia, ch. 61, Augustine replies to the opinion that
Christ, by conquering sin and overcoming the lusts of the flesh, taught that
sin is not of necessity: “Regardless of how this is spoken, the author of this
statement will see how he can expound it, while we on our part do not
doubt

in the least that Christ had no sin in Himself to conquer.” And there he
makes this statement: “I am free

with respect to such writings, no matter who wrote them, because I owe
agreement without any objection only to the canonical books.”

III. To a certain statement of Ambrose he replies, Contra Julianum, Bk. 1:

“This statement is against the Manichaeans, against whom this sufficed.”
And in his books of retractions Augustine says of himself: “We disputed
against the Manichaeans, who imagined that the nature of evil is co-eternal
with

God. Against them it was sufficient to maintain that evil has arisen out of
the free determination of the

will; and for this reason,” he says, “we said too little about grace.”
Therefore when the fathers contend

against certain heretics, they make it their aim only that they may overthrow
their opinions, and meanwhile they are not so concerned about other
articles. In consequence many statements frequently
escaped the fathers, in which they did not speak sufficiently circumspectly
about other dogmas. For this

reason Augustine says: “Hear with respect to the present matter what Basil
says elsewhere without any

ambiguity concerning original sin.”

IV. Basil says in Letter No. 41 concerning Dionysius of Alexandria: “We do

not admire everything

about this man; yes, there are certain things which we reject completely, for
they contain certain seeds

of the ungodliness of the Anomoeans.36 The reason, I believe, was not an

evil mind but that he wanted

vehemently to resist Sabellius. I am accustomed therefore to compare him

to an orchardist who wants to straighten the crooked shape of a sapling and
then departs from the golden mean to err in the opposite

direction by bending it too much.”

Thus Athanasius says, in Vol. 2, in the De sententia Dionysii: “The

condition of the time and of the person must be considered, why he wrote
thus. For Sabellianism had then invaded the churches, and Dionysius, when
he was about to show the unlearned that the Father is not the Son, speaks of
the humanity; for from the attributes of the humanity the Sabellians are
quickly refuted.” And there Athanasius says: “The Arians, seeing that they
cannot have anything from the Scripture for their heresy,

turn to the fathers, as robbers, when branded for their own activities,
pretend that the upright and honest are their companions and as the Jews,
when convicted by the Scripture, take refuge with Father Abraham, etc.”
And, indeed, clearly in the same way the papalists, devoid of and convicted
by the testimonies of Scripture, seek protection from the fathers.
Basil, in Letter No. 64, when it was objected that Gregory of Neocaesarea
had said that the Father and the Son are two with respect to the thoughts of
the mind, but in person only one, replies: “This was

said not dogmatically but in contention, in the disputation against Aelian.

For because he wants to convert a Greek person to the faith, he is not too
concerned about the words but at times makes concessions to the customs
of the man who is being brought in. For this reason you will there find
many

things said which now afford the heretics the greatest support.”

V. Chrysostom, in De compunctione cordis, Bk. 1, says: “Do not think that

this was said more by way of admonition than truly.” In the fathers,
therefore, many things are said more by way of admonition than
dogmatically and truly.

Thus Jerome says to Nepotian that in his hortatory epistle to Heliodorus he

had played in line with his

youth and, still aglow with the studies of the rhetoricians, had depicted
certain things with a scholastic flourish. And in Contra Jovinianum he says:
“We are rhetoricians, and we played a bit after the manner of professional
orators.”

VI. This difference also must be observed in the writings of the fathers, that
they at times set forth

their private speculations and devotions, that at times they describe a

custom of some particular church,

at times, however, explain public dogmas of the entire catholic church. And
between these there is certainly a great difference.

Also this observation is useful, that they deal and discuss differently with
weak brethren than they do
with the strong, differently with those of the household of faith than with
heretics, differently with philosophers than with princes. All these could be
shown by examples.

VII. They tolerated many things and often made concessions to the custom
of their times, even where

they knew that something was wrong.

Thus Augustine says in Letter No. 119: “Many things of this kind I do not
dare to reprove more freely

in order to avoid offending some either holy or confused persons. But this I
deplore very much that many things which are taught in the divine books in
the most salutary manner are given too little attention and that thus all
things are so full of presumption, etc.” Thus Augustine somewhere praises
the

vigils and love feasts at the graves of the martyrs; but in De moribus
ecclesiae, ch. 14, and in Letter No.

64 he criticizes these things and would like to have them forbidden.

VIII. Very fine is the statement of Cyprian, Bk. 2, Letter No. 3: “If Christ
alone is to be heard, we

ought not to give heed to what someone before us thought should be done,
but what Christ, who is before all, has done before. For we ought not to
follow the custom of man but the truth of God. If therefore any of our
predecessors either from ignorance or from simplicity of mind did not
observe and

hold what the Lord taught us to do by His example and teaching, pardon
can be granted his simplicity

from the goodness of the Lord. But we cannot be forgiven who have now
been admonished and
instructed by the Lord, who while He instructs us what we are to do in the
future, pardons what in our

simplicity we have done wrong in the past, etc.” Let those consider this
statement who keep saying that they would rather err with the fathers than
believe correctly with others. Rightly also do the men on our

side say: “If the fathers had been admonished, they would have corrected
many things. For, as Augustine says, ‘it makes a difference, how readily
one corrects or with how much stubbornness he tries

to defend his error.’”

Lastly, when these mitigations or suitable interpretations of those things

which had not been stated aptly enough by the ancients were not received
and admitted, or could not find a place, then the fathers

expressly disapproved and condemned the things which did not agree with
the rule of Scripture. Thus

Augustine judges very frankly concerning the writings of Cyprian and of all
others, as we have quoted

his statements above. Thus the opinion of the Chiliasts is freely condemned
in Irenaeus. The opinion that some were saved by the law of nature, some
by the law of Moses, some, however, by the grace of

Christ, is found in many of the most ancient fathers; but Augustine

expressly condemns it as Pelagian.

Against the Donatists he says that those who embrace the errors of the
fathers because (as Quintilian says) the error seems honorable to those who
follow great leaders, do the same as if someone wanted to

be like Peter in denying Christ or in forcing the gentiles to judaize or as if

someone tried to be like David by committing adultery.

8 In this way, then, the fathers themselves treated the writings of other
fathers and in this way they also wanted their own to be read and received.
This opinion we freely approve, embrace, and follow.

But our adversaries, the papalists, when they can bring forth certain
statements from the fathers for the

protection of their superstitions and somehow throw them together contrary

to those things which are shown from the Scriptures, want us, without
judgment and refusal, to depart from the Scripture and to

assent to the statements quoted by them from the fathers, even though they
are not proved by any testimony of Scripture.

Staphylus and Lindanus are not ashamed to make Athanasius the author of
this opinion. For they cite

his statement to Epictetus in mutilated form and torn out of context: “It
suffices to reply and say only

this to the heretics, that this is not the way of the catholic church and that
the fathers did not hold this.”

In order that the statement of Athanasius may be twisted more easily to this
purpose of the papalists, the translator Nannius translates it thus: “Only that
is to be replied to these things which by itself is sufficient, namely: ‘That
was not the opinion of the fathers,’” although the Greek words simply say:

“Answer only this to these things, and enough will have been said.” But
they do Athanasius a great wrong. For writing to Epictetus, he examines the
strange errors held by some: The Word is changed into

the body; the body of Christ is said to constitute a fourth person in the
Deity; the body is made coeternal and of one essence with the Deity; and
similar extraordinary opinions and words. Of those he says: “I

have written these down in bare words only that he who only hears them
may at once notice their hideousness and wickedness. For what is clearly
bad and perverse, that ought not be treated more inquisitively, lest it seem
ambiguous to contentious men; but it suffices to make only this reply to
such

things and to say that this is not held by the catholic church and that the
fathers did not think thus. But lest they take occasion for their impudence
from our total silence, we shall place a few statements from

Scripture in their way, etc.” I ask you, dear reader, to compare this whole
statement of Athanasius with

the mutilated quotation of the papalists, and you may establish from this
with what sincerity the papalists treat the testimonies of the fathers.

36 The Anomoeans were a species of Arians. They denied not only that the
Son is of one substance with the Father but also His likeness to the Father.

SECTION VII

The Seventh Kind of Traditions

1 The seventh kind of traditions is that where the ancients make mention of
the unwritten traditions, they do not actually understand dogmas of faith
without, beside, and beyond Scripture which are to be

accepted even though they cannot be proved by any testimony of Scripture,

but they speak of certain ancient rites and customs which they traced back
to the apostles because of their antiquity. Thus Basil

calls them unwritten dogmas, received from tradition; but he enumerates

not articles of faith but only

certain rites: to make the sign of the cross, to turn toward the east in prayer;
the words of the epiclesis when the bread of the Eucharist is shown, and
which are spoken at the celebration of the Eucharist before and after the
words of institution; the blessing of the water of Baptism, and of the person
baptized, the anointing with oil, the threefold immersion, the renunciation
of Satan in Baptism, the confession of faith. Origen tells of innumerable
genuflections in prayer, the rites of the Eucharist and of Baptism. Jerome, in
his Contra Luciferianos, quotes from Tertullian:37 “Not to fast on the
Lord’s Day, and from Easter to Pentecost, nor to pray kneeling; to taste milk
before, and honey after, baptism; offerings for the dead and for the annual
birthday feasts, etc.” Whether some or all of these traditions

are apostolic we shall discuss in connection with the last kind of traditions.
Now I only wanted to show
that when the fathers speak of unwritten traditions, they are discussing only
certain ancient rites and that they do not, as the papalists contend, aim at
this, that many dogmas of faith which cannot be proved with any testimony
of Scripture should nevertheless be received with the same reverence and
devotion

as those which have sure and clear testimonies in the Scripture. As therefore
there is a difference between doctrine and rites, so the discussion of the
papalists concerning traditions is not the same as that which is found with
the ancients. And if agreement in doctrine were previously established, then
a

way and agreement about rites could easily be attained. That the apostles
instituted for the churches certain rites is firmly established from their own
writings; and it is likely that also certain other external rites which are not
mentioned in the Scripture were handed down by the apostles.

2 Also there is no doubt that the church after the apostles added certain
other rites for the purpose of edification, order, and decorum. It can, indeed,
not be proved with sure and firm testimonies which rites

were certainly delivered by the apostles, although they cannot be shown

from Scripture. We can nevertheless have a sure apostolic approach to the
evaluation and use of all traditions, to rites or external ceremonies
regardless where they may have their origin. And this is more sure and
more useful

than to carry on uncertain quarrels regarding the authors. Accordingly, that

the traditions concerning external rites may not, in the absence of some sure
apostolic rule, fluctuate now in this direction, now in that, or roam on
endlessly, certain sure rules are gathered from those institutions or external
rites, concerning which it is known from their own writings that the apostles
handed them down, and according to these rules one should and can judge
in the manner of the apostles concerning any and all

rites or ceremonies.
I. There are some rites which can be proved from the Scripture, because
they contain the use, exercise, and profitable explanation of that doctrine
which is divinely revealed in the Scripture. Thus Paul, in 1 Cor. 11:27–29,
deduces from the institution how the Lord’s Supper is to be celebrated in a
godly manner. And from the doctrine of the apostles which is contained in
the Scripture there are conclusions: in 2 Thess. 3:6–8, that one should
withdraw from those who lead disorderly lives; in 1 Cor.

5, concerning excommunication; in Acts 14:23, concerning appointing

ministers for the church, etc.

Such rites we rightly love and retain: as the confession of faith, the
renunciation of Satan, and other rites in the act of Baptism, which explain
and illustrate the doctrine concerning Baptism which is delivered in

the Scripture as profitably for edification. So there are found in Scripture

clear testimonies concerning

the abrogation of the Sabbath, and the Scripture clearly indicates in Acts
20:7 and 1 Cor. 16:2 that the

apostles held their meetings on the first day of the week. And in Rev. 1:10
is found the designation “the

Lord’s Day.” So the apostles based their decision on the teaching of love to
the neighbor and of receiving the weak in the faith.

Such are also those ecclesiastical customs of which Augustine believes that
they have their origin from the tradition of the apostles: concerning the
baptism of infants and about not rebaptizing such as

had received Baptism from heretics according to the form instituted by

Christ. For these customs teach

the exercise and use of that doctrine which is contained in the testimonies of
Scripture. That such rites
should be called apostolic we do not oppose, since in this way, as has been
said, they have testimony in

the Scripture itself.

II. Paul distinguished apostolic rites with these marks, that all things should
be done decently, in an

orderly way, and for edification. Thus he shows in 1 Cor. 11:5–10 that the
custom of the women veiling

themselves is commendable from the Scripture; he cites the custom and

shows that it serves decorum. In

1 Cor. 14, when he wants to show the reasons for the directions regarding
tongues, prophecy, psalms,

prayer, etc., he mentions edification, decorum, and order. And I judge that
such rites should certainly be retained and preserved which are (as has been
well said) inducements and aids to piety, that is, according to Paul’s rule,
which first of all make for edification, that men may be invited to the Word,
to the sacraments, and to other exercises of piety; that the doctrine may be
more aptly set forth, valued more, received more eagerly, and better
retained; and that penitence, faith, prayer, piety, and mercy may

be kindled and cherished, etc. Secondly, those which serve good order; for
it is necessary that in the public meetings of the church there be order
worthy of churchly dignity. Thirdly, those which make for

decorum. Now, by decorum we understand not theatrical pomp or courtly

splendor but such decorum as

shows by means of external rites the honor in which we hold the Word, the
sacraments, and the remaining churchly functions, and by which others are
invited to reverence toward the Word, the sacraments, and the assemblies of
the church.
III. Christian liberty places a limit on apostolic rites, namely, that
ceremonies may be according to their nature adiaphora, few in number,
good and profitable for edification, order, and decorum, and that

this whole kind, except in the case of offense, should be observed in

freedom, so that they can be instituted, changed, or done away with for
reasons of edification place, time, persons, etc. Thus the decree of the
apostles concerning that which was strangled and concerning blood has
long ago ceased to

be in use, because the reason for which it was made no longer exists. In 1
Cor. 11:4 Paul orders that men

are to pray and prophesy with uncovered head, the women with veiled head.
And this he takes from the

circumstance of the places and times. For at that time and in those places
men went out into the public

with their head uncovered, but women, both slave and free, with their head
veiled, as Plutarch writes in

Quaestiones Romanae, And it was a sign of authority to speak with

uncovered head, as, on the other hand, a covered head was a sign of
subjection. In our times and places the opposite is observed. For to

speak or listen with uncovered head is a sign of subjection, but the sign of
authority is to speak with the head covered.

Thus the threefold immersion, previous tasting of milk and honey, the
positions in prayer on the Lord’s Day and between Easter and Pentecost,
have long ago ceased to be in necessary use. The birthday feasts of which
Tertullian makes mention the Synod of Nicaea freely abolished. Even the
papalists now have no special words when the consecrated bread of the
Eucharist is shown, and yet the

ancients believed that these customs had been handed down by the apostles.
The church has therefore
declared its liberty in traditions of this kind by this very fact. For the
doctrine is universal and perpetual, but the ceremonies can be freely
changed according to circumstances.

3 Besides, certain rules are also gathered from the writings of the apostles,
which show when traditions of this kind about ceremonies must be opposed
by both teaching and example, namely, when

they assert things which conflict with the Word and the divine command
(cf. Matt. 15:1–9) or when with ceremonies, which are in themselves
indifferent things, notions of worship, merit, and necessity are

connected, even if they do not give offense. Here also belongs the
complaint of Augustine in Letter No.

119: “Religion, which the mercy of God wanted to leave free, with very few
and very clear sacramental

celebrations, these ceremonies oppress with slavish burdens, so that the

condition of the Jews is more

tolerable, who were subjected to the burdens of the Law, not to human
presumptions.”

4 This is the true apostolic way of judging concerning traditions of this

kind. And it is more certain and useful than to dispute about uncertain
things, as, for instance, which traditions were handed down

by which apostles, at which time, in which place, etc., concerning which no

proof can be brought forward from the Scripture.

5 Therefore we do not simply reject and condemn all traditions which are of
this kind. For we do not disapprove of what Jerome writes to Lucinius,
namely, that the churchly traditions, especially such as do

not harm the faith, are to be observed as they were handed down by the
elders. Also what Augustine says: “Whatever is commanded that does not
hinder faith or good morals is to be considered an indifferent thing and
observed for the benefit of those among whom one lives.” I want these
things to be

understood according to the apostolic rules, which, as we have said, are

brought together from the Scripture. For also Augustine, in Letter No. 119,
says that certain rites must be curbed, although one could not easily find in
what way they are against the faith, yet, because they burden the church by
their number and by the presumption of necessity, they should be abrogated.

37 Most editions of the Examen here have ex Textu. Nigrinus, however, has
“Tertullian.” An examination of the edition of 1566 shows that the text here
was so indistinct that a later typesetter read textu for the abbreviation Tertu.
, and the error remained uncorrected even in the Preuss edition.

SECTION VIII

The Eighth Kind of Traditions

1 The last kind of traditions we shall make the one concerning which the
papalists fight most of all. This division of the traditions under a certain
number of heads, or kinds, I have made in order that the debate concerning
traditions, which the papalists have studiously made difficult by artificial
confusions, can be more simply and clearly understood and that the
statements of the ancients, which do not always speak

in the same way about the traditions, might be judged and explained more
correctly. For by heaping up

many dissimilar statements from the most ancient writings the papalists
gain for their disputation a certain appearance and cloak, or rather a
deceitful disguise. But it is sophistical that they whitewash all traditions,
which are not of one kind, as the proverb has it, out of the same pot, in
order that the simpler people may not notice the fraud. And I judge that
there is no simpler way by which this whole disputation may be explained
and the objections of the papalists solidly refuted than if the traditions of
which the ancients speak in glowing terms are distinguished from those for
which the papalists fight.
For we have so far shown a number of kinds of traditions which the
ancients call by this name, which

have testimonies of the Scriptures and are in agreement with them. As

therefore what the ancients proclaim in glowing terms concerning those
traditions is not at all against us, who willingly receive the

things which agree with the Scripture, so it cannot in the least help the
purpose of the papalists to uphold those things which cannot be proved by
any testimony of the Scripture if the true explanation is

shown.

2 But now we are entering upon that topic which is the particular property
of the papalists: about traditions which pertain both to faith and morals and
which cannot be proved with any testimony of Scripture but which the
Synod of Trent nevertheless commands to be received and venerated with
the

same reverence and devotion as the Scripture itself. And as from this place
at first the corruptions, abuses, superstitions, and whatever belongs to the
kingdom of Antichrist have come forth, so they are

today also defended from it. For what more comprehensive license could be
thought out, to invent whatever you please freely and with impunity in the
church, than if against all the very firmest and clearest arguments from
Scripture the mere title of traditions may be turned like the head of the
Gorgon,

so that it is not right to search further if a thing is said to be tradition? In the

oration of Tatian to the Greeks a certain idol is called the “epitome of
superstitions”; but we can more rightly call the arguments of the papalists
about traditions not the epitome but a complete repertory of errors and
superstitions.

3 It is altogether an extraordinary piece of audacity to place anything on a

par with the majesty and authority of the canonical Scripture. Yet the
Council of Trent demands this for the unwritten traditions,
pertaining both to faith and to morals, that they are to be received with the
same devotion and reverence

as the Holy Scriptures themselves. Now what?

Does the council perhaps, like the ancients, mean such traditions as are
contained in the Scripture and

can be proved with its clear testimonies? Far from it! Rather, Andrada says
that also those traditions must necessarily be believed which cannot be
proved with any testimony of Scripture. And lest the reader be in doubt
about what they mean, they distinctly and clearly explain which traditions
they mean.

Peter a Soto uses these words: “It is an infallible Catholic rule: Whatever
the Roman Church believes,

holds, and observes, even if it is not contained in the Scriptures, that was
handed down by the apostles.”

Again: “Those customs whose beginning, author, and origin are unknown
or cannot be found have

without any doubt been handed down by the apostles.” He enumerates in

particular these traditions:

“The offering of the sacrifice of the altar, the anointing with chrism, the
invocation of the saints, the merits of works, the primacy of the Roman
pontiff, the consecration of the water in Baptism, the whole

sacrament of confirmation, the elements, words, and effects of the

sacraments of ordination, of matrimony, and of extreme unction, prayers for
the dead, the enumeration of sins to be made to the priest, the necessity of
satisfaction.” These are the words of a Soto which I have copied here in
order

that the reader may see that the controversy in this discussion about
traditions is not about indifferent
things but about matters of the greatest importance.

We have therefore a description which has not been exaggerated by us from

ill will but which has been delivered to us in their own words, namely, what
kind of traditions we ought to understand those to

be which they want us to receive and venerate with equal devotion and
reverence as the canonical Scripture itself. But to this enumeration of a Soto
belong infinitely more things, as: the mutilation of the Lord’s Supper, the
celibacy of the priests, the choice of foods, purgatory, the traffic in
indulgences, the cult of images, the legends of the saints, and, to sum it up:
whatever the Roman Church believes, holds,

and observes, which cannot be proved by any testimony of the Scripture,

must be believed to have been

handed down by the apostles. This is indeed a short and easy way. For
many years now the justest complaints of the whole world have been crying
out that the rule of the papalists has brought into the

church many corruptions, abuses, and superstitions; they are asking that
these most serious

controversies should be decided and defined by a legitimate council from

the Word of God. But behold,

the papalists profess with a loud voice that they cannot prove many things
which they believe, hold, and

observe with any testimony of Scripture. Do they then want to have those
things corrected which do not

agree with the rule of the Sacred Scripture? By no means! But they set up
this “demand,” or postulate,

as the geometricians call it, which they do not want to be obligated to

prove: Whatever the present Roman Church believes, holds, and observes,
which cannot be proved with any testimony of Scripture,
must certainly be set down as having been handed down by the apostles.
And at once the Council of Trent adds its decisive voice: “The unwritten
traditions must be received and venerated with the same

devotion and reverence as the Holy Scripture itself.” After such a short and
light skirmish the cry of victory goes up, and the war is over in the Council
of Trent about the weightiest controversies of these

times — as a certain Gallic bishop shouted at the opening of the council:

“We came, we saw, we conquered.”

4 We shall not speak in order of every single thing which they foist on the
churches under the name of traditions and for which they invent originators
for themselves, for this has been done learnedly and

fully by others; but we shall set down some general observations, which can
be done the more briefly,

because the foundations of this whole dispute lie in the things which we
have set forth so far.

5 Let it be observed first of all how dangerous it is for the church, and how
destructive for the faith, to receive and venerate traditions concerning
dogmas which cannot be proved with any testimony of Scripture with the
same devotion and reverence as those things which are handed down and
proved with

sure and clear testimonies of the Scripture. For above we have shown
extensively that, even while the

apostles themselves were still living in the flesh, in their absence the purity
of the doctrine was not always preserved faithfully in the churches through
unwritten traditions, as the churches of the Corinthians and Galatians show.
False prophets also, while the apostles were yet alive, invented many

corruptions under this pretense and name, that they had been handed down
orally by the apostles, as we
have shown above. For this very reason the apostles began to set down their
doctrine in writings and to

commend these to the churches, as has been shown extensively and clearly
above.

Paul also admonishes the churches that they should not allow themselves to
be disturbed and

deceived under the name and pretense of traditions. And he gives this
admonition the moment he begins

to write, 2 Thess. 2:2: “Not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either

by spirit or by word, or by

letter purporting to be from us.” He also repeats this admonition when he

wrote from prison to the Colossians: “See to it that no one makes a prey of
you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition.” Peter
also, when the end of his life drew near and when he wrote his last epistle,
foretells the coming of false teachers who with hypocritical speeches would
carry on their business in

the church.

That these predictions and admonitions of the apostles concerning traditions

were not without

substance experience has shown. For immediately after the times of the
apostles, when it was still a matter of most recent memory what the doctrine
of the apostles had been, heretics began to foist strange

dogmas on the churches under the pretense and name of unwritten

traditions. For Irenaeus says, Bk. 3,

ch. 2: “When they are convicted from the Scriptures, they turn and accuse
the Scriptures themselves that

the truth cannot be found from them by those who do not know the
tradition, for this was delivered not
through writings but by the living voice, as Paul says, ‘wisdom among the
perfect.’” And in Bk. 1 he

says that the Carpocratians defended their new fictions with this pretext,
that Jesus had spoken such things privately to the apostles in a mystery and
that the apostles had transmitted them, not to all but to the worthy only.

Tertullian, in De praescriptione adversus haereticos, says that when they

could not prove their fictions from the Scripture, but were refuted from
them, they pretended two things: either that the apostles had not known all
things, because Christ says, “I have yet many things to say to you, but you

cannot bear them now,” or that the apostles indeed had not been ignorant of
anything but that they had

not revealed all things to all, that they had delivered some things publicly
and to all, some things secretly and to only a few. For this reason they
argued that also those things which were set forth without Scripture, outside
of and contrary to Scripture, as delivered by the living voice, must be
accepted. This falsehood Tertullian refutes exceedingly well: “For the Lord
commands that if they had

heard anything in darkness and in secret, they should preach it in the light
and from the housetops; that

they should not hide their lamp under a bushel but place it on a
candlestick.” And he adds: “Even if they

discussed certain things within the family, yet it must not be believed that
these were things which would bring in a different rule of faith, diverse
from and contradictory to that which they taught to people in general.”

Irenaeus quotes the saying of Paul: “I did not shrink from declaring to you
the whole counsel of God.” And he adds: “So also Luke delivered without
envy what he had learned, saying: ‘As those delivered it to us who from the
beginning,’ etc.” But, because there was no doubt that the apostles had
delivered many things with the living voice, lest for that reason other
dogmas should be invented, different from and contrary to those which are
found in the Scripture, Irenaeus and Tertullian showed

that the true traditions of the apostles and of apostolic men are not other,
different, and contrary but entirely in agreement with the Scripture, as this
has been demonstrated above. But these things had to be

briefly repeated here in order to show that it is an old and much used way to
deceive by means of the

name of traditions. For the apostles predicted this and forewarned the
churches. The history of the primitive church shows this and also offers
solutions for this false claim that the apostles had delivered many things
also by word of mouth and that therefore not all of the things that are to be
believed can be

taken and proved from the Scriptures. For Irenaeus says that the things
which Polycarp was accustomed

to relate from tradition were not different or contrary, but “all agreed with
the Holy Scriptures.”

Thus also later heretics clothed their corruptions with the cloak of
traditions. Eusebius, in Bk. 5, ch.

28, relates that Artemon boasted that his doctrine was ancient, that all the
older ones, even the apostles themselves, had thought and taught thus. But
against him, says Eusebius, there cry out first the divine

Scriptures, then the older writings of the brethren. Clement says in

Stromata, 7,38 that Basilides had boasted that he had had as his teacher a
certain Glaucias, who was an interpreter of Peter; that Valentinus had heard
Theudas, a man close to Paul; that the Marcionites boasted that they had
had

disciples of Matthias as their teachers and that they held and taught the
doctrine delivered by them.
Athanasius, in the second discourse of Contra Arianos, says that the
introduction of a writing of Arius, which had the title Thaleia, was as
follows: “From the elect of God according to faith, from them that know
God, and have walked uprightly, who have also received the Holy Spirit of
God, I have so

learned.” Since therefore at the time of the apostles themselves and later in
the period of the primitive

church there was always danger to the sound doctrine and pure faith of the
apostles from snares prepared from the pretense and name of unwritten
traditions, the wise reader can easily estimate what a

Pandora’s box of every calamity it is in the church that the Council of Trent
has decreed that the unwritten traditions concerning both dogmas and
morals are to be received and venerated with the same

devotion and reverence as the Scripture itself.

We are now living in the last times, concerning the dreadful dangers of
which, especially as they pertain to doctrine and faith, Christ and the
apostles uttered the gloomiest of prophecies. Therefore it must be a
reprobate mind which can be persuaded in these dangerous times to forsake
the clear light of

the Scripture and to entrust his faith to the darkness of uncertain traditions.
But we shall rather follow the safe counsel of Chrysostom, who says, as we
have quoted at length above (p. 156): “The Lord, therefore, knowing that
there would be such a great confusion of things in the last days, commands
that

Christians who … want to gain steadfastness in the true faith should take
refuge in nothing else but the

Scriptures. Otherwise, if they look to other things, they will be offended and
will perish.” We also set
against them the statement of Jerome, who says in his comments on the first
chapter of Haggai: “Other

things also which they find and invent of their own accord without authority
and testimony of the Scriptures, as though by apostolic tradition, the sword
of God strikes through.”

6 In the second place, this also must be observed that not only have the
seduced heretics seduced others through the pretense and name of the
unwritten traditions, but that also excellent men in the church who were not
evil were nevertheless deceived, since they attributed too much beside the
Scripture to the unwritten traditions. A memorable example of this is
recorded in Eusebius, Bk. 3, ch.

39, concerning Papias, who was a hearer of John and a codisciple of

Polycarp. Papias prefaces his writing by saying that he had well learned and
correctly committed to memory the doctrines of faith he

had received from those who were close friends to the apostles. And he
adds: “I found no pleasure in

those who relate strange precepts, but in those who teach what is true and
who bring the things of our

faith which have been handed down by the Lord and which have come forth
from the truth itself. Thus

when anyone came who had been a follower of the elders, I asked about the
words of the elders, what

Andrew, what Philip, what Thomas, or any other of the disciples of the
Lord had said.” This is indeed a

grand commendation of the traditions by Papias. And let the reader consider
these words of Papias: “I

thought I would not carry away as much benefit from books as from the
living voice.” You see that Papias preferred the traditions to the Scripture;
for this reason also he chiefly inquired concerning the

traditions of those apostles of whom no writings are extant. And surely, if

we were to believe anyone

with respect to unwritten traditions, it should certainly be Papias.

But hear what Eusebius says: “Papias adds many seeming contradictions
and certain other things as

having been told to him “as from unwritten tradition”; also certain strange
parables and doctrines of the

Savior and some other incredible things, among which is also the chiliastic
opinion.” And Eusebius adds as the reason that he had not correctly
received nor rightly considered the apostolic discussions because he was
gifted with only a modest measure of judgment.

Now let the reader pause a moment and compare these two pupils of the
apostles or of apostolic men,

namely, Polycarp and Papias, each of whom affirms that he is handing

down only that truth which he

had received from the apostles. But Polycarp holds fast to the sound rule of
faith. For what he relates

from the traditions is “all in harmony with the Holy Scriptures,” as Irenaeus
says in Eusebius, Bk. 5, ch.

20. Papias, however, because he set greater store by the unwritten traditions
than by the Holy Scriptures,

brought “strange doctrines and things which appear rather fabulous” into
the church. So the too great admiration of the unwritten traditions deceived
the good apostolic man Papias because he set greater store by them than by
the Scriptures. But the “harmony” of traditions with the Scriptures kept
Polycarp

on the royal road. Thus Eusebius says, Bk. 3, ch. 37, that many disciples in
the first step of the apostolic succession had performed the work of
evangelists, that is, that they had preached Christ and with great

zeal had labored “to hand down the Scripture of the divine evangelists” to
those who had until then heard nothing at all of the doctrine of faith. Such
were the true traditions at that time.

However, not only did the admiration of the unwritten traditions deceive
Papias himself, but he, as Eusebius says, also gave cause to very many men
after him in the church to fall into the chiliastic error.

As the reason for this Eusebius adds: “Because they advanced as excuse the
antiquity of the man.”

Therefore the admiration of the unwritten traditions and the pretext of

antiquity outside of, beside, and

contrary to the Scripture drew away also good and outstanding men in the
church from the sound rule of

faith. For the chiliastic opinion was embraced as being by apostolic

tradition by Irenaeus, Apollinarius,

Tertullian, Victorinus, and Lactantius, as Jerome recorded. And that

happened in the first and most flourishing times of the church. What do you
think, reader, will happen in these last and most sad times

of our aging church, if this decree of the Tridentine Synod is adopted, that
the unwritten traditions must be accepted with the same reverence and
devotion as the Holy Scripture itself?

I shall add one more example which is very clear. Clement of Alexandria
was considered to be a very
famous man in all antiquity. He mentions in Stromata, Bk. 1, that he had
heard many blessed and very highly esteemed men from Greece,
Coelesyria, Egypt, and from the Orient. And he especially praises

one whom he had heard in Palestine, a Hebrew. Andrada understands that

this was Papias. And Clement

adds: “Those who preserved the true tradition of the blessed doctrine
received directly from Peter, James, John, and Paul have come also to us by
the will of God, to deposit those apostolic seeds which

were given by their elders.” 39 Again he says: “For us research proceeds

from the glorious and venerable rule of tradition.” Here Andrada exclaims:
“Why was it necessary for Clement either to search this out

with such great disturbance of spirit, or to commit it to writing, if

everything had been comprehended in

the sacred writings?” I indeed do not deny that Clement listened with
singular zeal and admiration to all

who said that they had received, by tradition from apostles and apostolic
men, certain other things besides those things which were written. For this
reason he says that a laborer who is sent into the harvest of the Lord
possesses a twofold husbandry, an unwritten and a written one. 40

But let us hear some things which Clement says he received from that
unwritten tradition. First, however, he sets up this axiom, why he is not
content with the Scripture but looks for other traditions

concerning the dogmas of faith beside it, namely, because the Lord did not
reveal to many the things which were not for the many, but to the few of
whom He knew that it was suitable for them. “But (‘secret things’),” he
says, “are entrusted to the spoken word, not to writing.” Again:

“Mysteries are delivered in a mystical manner.”

Book 5 contains a long discussion to the following effect: As the
philosophers so concealed some of

their secret teachings that they might not be manifest to all, for they called
some ‘exoteric,’ others

‘esoteric,’ and, as Plato says, the greatest safeguard is not to write but to
learn, for what is written becomes public; so also the apostle, preserving
that ancient manner of concealment, says: “Among the

mature we do impart wisdom.” Again he says: “Few are able to

comprehend this. For this reason the Lord in a certain Gospel says: ‘My
mystery is for Me and for the sons of My house.’”

If anyone compares these words, he will find that they are plainly the very
same which we have quoted above from Irenaeus, from the book about the
Carpocratians and Bk. 3 about the Valentinians;

likewise from Tertullian’s De praescriptione adversus haereticos. For under

this pretext the traditions began to be foisted on the church immediately
after the times of the apostles. And precisely this opinion

of the heretics was resolutely opposed by Irenaeus and Tertullian. Yet there
remained and clung also to

later men, Clement, for instance, the opinion that Christ and the apostles
had delivered some things (as Tertullian’s heretics say) publicly and to all,
some, however, secretly and to only a few, and that this is the origin of the
traditions over and above the Scripture. Clement also never grows weary of
commending a certain peculiar species of Gnostics, of whom he gives this
description in Bk. 6: “The

knowledge which makes a true Gnostic is that which by succession came

down to a few from the apostles, handed down without writing, etc.” 41
The heresy of the Gnostics, which had its origin in a more highly developed
notion of knowledge based on spurious traditions, was indeed condemned
by the
church, but because of the admiration of the unwritten traditions certain
seeds about a more perfect knowledge than is delivered in the Scripture
clung also to great and learned men in the church.

But what are the things which Clement accepted from that secret, or
mystical, tradition of the few?

We shall mention a few things, from which a judgment can be made

concerning the rest, about which he

himself confesses that they were of such a nature that he was afraid to write
them down.

In Bk. 1 of the Stromata he says that in these his commentaries, which were
compiled from the traditions, he wanted to mix the truth of the heavenly
doctrine with the principles of philosophy, because, as the Law was to the
Jews a custodian until Christ came, so also philosophy was to the Greeks.
And afterwards he adds: “At one time also philosophy, by itself, justified
the Greeks. For there

are many ways to life.” 42 And afterward he contends that the Law also
procures salvation and makes just persons out of the unjust, if anyone wants
to obey it. But this clearly conflicts with the writings of Paul. But Clement
explains that these are mysteries which were delivered not publicly and to
all but secretly and to few only by the apostles. However, Tertullian
expressly refutes this; we have previously

quoted his words.

He also relates in Bk. 1 of the traditions that Christ preached for only one
year. But this tradition Irenaeus, Bk. 2, ch. 39,43 attributes to the heretics;
and he himself sets another tradition against it which he affirms the elders
had received from the apostle John and also from other apostles, namely,
that Christ was not far from his 50th year when He was crucified. But also
this tradition of Irenaeus was repudiated by the common opinion of the
Church. For it can be shown from the Gospel of John and from the Acts of
the Apostles that it is not true. So also good men in the church were
deceived by their
excessive admiration of the unwritten traditions.

We shall add a few other things from Clement’s traditions. In Stromata, Bk.
2, he says that apostles had after their death preached also to the dead who
had descended into the water with the apostles and

from there ascended, having been made alive again. In the same place he
grants to the fallen only a second repentance.

In Bk. 3 he says: “Paul says second marriages are granted by way of

indulgence; for they do not sin

against the Law, nevertheless they do not fulfill evangelical perfection.”

In Bk. 4 he says: “Let men repent either here or elsewhere, for no place is
without the mercy of God.”

And for that reason he says in Bk. 6: “Perhaps the punishments will cease
after this life.”

In Bk. 6 he argues at length that the Greeks were saved by their philosophy.
Also, that the apostles

had preached the Gospel to the ungodly in hell, in order that those might not
remain in damnation who

in this life were unable to hear the Gospel, but that they might be converted.
He also argues that one must not cling to the letter of Scripture, but seek an
allegory, so that he transforms even the Decalog into various allegories.

In Bk. 7 he says: “The wise virgins say to God: ‘We have omitted none of
the things which You commanded, therefore we also ask for what You have
promised.’” And to this way of thinking he accommodates what a certain
athlete said when, after he had trained his body a long time, he had gone

up to the Olympian games and had looked upon the statue of the Pisan
Zeus: “If everything, O Zeus, has
been rightly prepared by me for the contest, then be just and give me the
victory.” 44

In the same place he maintains that a perfect man must not swear and that
Christians cannot contend

in court, neither before Gentiles nor before saints. I could quote very many
similar things from the books of Clement about original sin, about free will,
about freedom from passion, about perfection, about faith, about salvation,
etc., which depart far from the rule of the Scripture; but I wanted to name

these few points which I think not even the papalists will approve of in
order to show how the name,

pretense, and reputation of the unwritten traditions, whose origin is referred

to those who professed that they had heard the apostles, deceived also good
and great men in the church in such a way that they often turned aside to
clearly strange doctrines, a thing which cannot be denied concerning
Clement. This

extravagant praise of the traditions on the part of Clement indeed also

instilled these opinions in Origen and in others after him. But in Origen, and
afterward in others, many things were condemned according

to the rule of the Scripture which Clement had received as apostolic

traditions, such as salvation through philosophy and through the Law, that
only one repentance is possible after one has come to faith, about

conversion and repentance after death, about the cessation of eternal

punishments, about perfection, free

will, etc.
If anyone rightly considers the Stromata of Clement, he will perceive that it
is due to the name and reputation of the traditions outside of Scripture that
at the time of Origen and later the doctrine of the church degenerated
among some people from apostolic purity and simplicity to a philosophic
mixture

and transformation.

Origen says in the introduction to his books

, where he undertakes to explain the

principal parts of the doctrine of the church: “Although there are many who
think they know what is Christ’s, nevertheless the message of the church is
preserved through an order of succession handed down by the apostles and
remaining in the churches to the present. Only that is to be believed as truth

which disagrees in no way with the ecclesiastical tradition, etc.” This is a

high-sounding introduction,

and because he says that he received it from tradition, I judge that he is

saying what he means. For he

had received his doctrine from Clement of Alexandria, who had received
these traditions from those who professed that they had heard the apostles
and their disciples. Therefore Origen thinks they are apostolic traditions.
But of what character the doctrine of Origen in his books

is, is both

manifest of itself, and the judgment of Jerome concerning them to Avitus

Pammachius and to Oceanus

is known, and elsewhere he calls his teachings “poisoned.” And these are
indeed the fruits of such traditions.

But if in the best times of the primitive church the pretense and reputation
of unwritten traditions was
able to lead very outstanding men away from the sane and simple rule of
faith to strange opinions, we

certainly are warned by these examples to beware of the leaven of the

Tridentine decree concerning the

unwritten traditions, that they are to be received with the same devotion as
the Holy Scripture itself. The reader may compare among themselves the
times of Papias, of Clement, and these our last times, and

the matter will not be obscure. Therefore through the name, pretense, and
reputation of the traditions outside of and contrary to the Scripture both
heretics and also great and rather good men in the church

have been deceived and in turn have deceived others. There is need,
therefore, of a sure rule according

to which anything that is proposed under the name of tradition may be

examined. What that rule is we

shall say later. For we shall first conclude the remaining observations
concerning the origin of the traditions which cannot be proved by any
testimony of Scripture.

7 The third observation is that some of the ancients quote many things from
the apocryphal, or spurious, writings under the title of traditions. This
observation will shed light on many things. Papias

and Clement had received their traditions from those who professed that
they had heard either the apostles or their disciples. But those who followed
later, since they could not say that they had heard either the apostles or their
disciples and yet admired the traditions, traced them back to the apostles
under a different pretext. And for this the reading of the apocryphal
writings, that is, of the spurious

ones, gave them occasion. For we said above that the church with
wholesome diligence distinguished three classes of writings about the
doctrine of Christ and of the apostles. In the first class were the legitimate,
sure, and testamentary writings, as they are called by Eusebius. The second
class contained

writings concerning which there were some doubts, which they nevertheless
wanted read for the edification of the people. The third class contained
writings which were held to be spurious, forged, fictitious, and false.
Although, therefore, the books of the third class had been rejected and
disapproved outright, nevertheless many inspected and read them privately;
and gradually the opinion was conceived

that it could be possible that such things, or at least some of them, had been
handed down by the apostles. What they therefore quoted from the
apocryphal, or those spurious writings, they began to adorn with the name
of traditions. I am not making this up, for what I am saying can be shown
by clear

examples.

Clement of Alexandria quotes many such things from the Apocrypha, by

which he tries to establish

strange doctrines. Thus in Stromata, Bk. 2, he proves from the Shepherd of

Hernias that the apostles also after their death preached to those who had
previously died in unbelief, and that, having converted

them, they had made them alive.45 In Bk. 5, when he wants to prove that
certain mysteries of the faith were concealed and not made known to all
Christians, he quotes, from a certain apocryphal gospel: “My

mystery is for me and for the sons of my house.” 46

In Bk. 6 he proves from apocryphal writings of Peter and Paul that the
Greeks were saved by philosophy.47 In the same place he proves from the
Shepherd of Hernias that in the Scripture one must depart from the letter
and seek for allegories, and that, indeed, in such a manner that even the
Decalog is transformed into various allegories. 48 And in Bk. 3 he says that
the followers of Tatian had condemned marriage by quoting certain
statements of Christ from the Gospel according to the Egyptians: “I have
come to destroy the works of woman.” Again: “As long as you women give
birth, death will flourish,

etc.” 49

Origen and Basil say that it is a tradition that the Zacharias who is said,
Matt. 23:35, to have been killed between the temple and the altar was the
father of the Baptist; but this is written in the apocryphal protogospel of
James. Tertullian and Basil say it is an apostolic tradition to sign all things
with the sign of the cross made in the air with the fingers, but this is taken
from the gospel of Nicodemus. For there

Charinus and Lentius, after being raised from the dead, make the sign of the
cross with their fingers on

their tongues. And Christ in hell makes the sign of the cross over Abraham
and the saints. He also gives

the malefactor the sign of the cross on his hand and says: “If the keeper of
Paradise does not want to

admit you, show him the sign of the cross.” Augustine says in Letter No.
99, to Euodius:50 “That Christ freed Adam in hell almost the whole church
agrees, and it must be believed that it has not believed this

without reason, regardless how it was handed down, even if the express
authority of the canonical Scriptures for this cannot be shown; some add
that this blessing was also granted to other patriarchs and

prophets, that when the Lord had come into hell, they were freed from their
pains, etc.” You hear the

tradition. But these things are read in the gospel of Nicodemus. And
Augustine, holding up to himself

against that tradition what is written about the bosom of Abraham, says: “I,
indeed, do not see it; let those explain it who perhaps can.” He also says: “I
do not know whether there is anyone to whom it does not seem absurd,
etc.” But such are the discussions about traditions.

There is an old tradition that Enoch and Elias will return before the Last
Day and will battle with the

Antichrist. But this is taken from the apocryphal gospel of Nicodemus.

Epiphanius took such delight in traditions of this kind from the apocryphal
writings that he prefers to

believe that Christ was born in a certain cave on the journey, according to
the apocryphal protogospel of

James, rather than in a stable in the town of Bethlehem. Clement also,

Stromata, Bk. 7, relates as from a tradition how the midwives inspected
Mary after the birth; this also is taken from the protogospel of

James.

Thus Epiphanius from tradition calls the parents of Mary Joakim and Anna;
and he adds that an angel

of Paradise had announced to Joakim the conception of a daughter. But this

is taken from the protogospel of James. From tradition also, that is, on the
basis of apocryphal writings, he calls the wife of Cain Sanue, the wife of
Seth Asura, the wife of Noah Barthenon, the father of Daniel Sabaan; the
father of Melchizedek Heracles, the mother Astaroth; that Abel was killed
in the 30th year of his life and in the 100th year of Adam; that Lazarus was
30 years old when he was raised up, and that after his

resurrection he lived 30 years more. He relates from tradition also that

Adam was buried where Christ

was crucified. But Jerome freely rejects both the tradition concerning the
burial of Adam and that concerning Zacharias, the father of the Baptist,
because they have no authority from the canonical Scriptures. Fasting with
bread and water Epiphanius calls a tradition, but it is found in Hernias, in
similitude 5. Eusebius, Bk. 3, ch. 25, names a certain writing on the
doctrines of the apostles among the

spurious and rejected books. And in the Canons of the Apostles the books
of Clement concerning the

commandments of the apostles are listed among the canonical books; that
this is a forgery even Lindanus acknowledges. But Epiphanius strongly
commends the Apostolic Constitutions, which were considered apocryphal,
or spurious, by the ancients, as is expressly said concerning the Canons of
the

Apostles, distinctions 15 and 10. Therefore Epiphanius says in Bk. 3, Tom.

2, Heresy 80: “In the Apostolic Constitutions the divine doctrine says that
the hair of the beard is not to be cut off.” He also makes mention of the
book about the Apostolic Constitutions in Bk. 1, Tom. 3, Heresy 45, and in
Bk. 3, Tom. 1, Heresy 70. Thus in Bk. 2, Tom. 1, Heresy 59, he quotes and
defends the canon of the celibacy

of the priests, so that in the priesthood they are not to use marriage. But
Paphnutius, at the Nicene Synod, calls it a new law. It is therefore false that
it is an apostolic tradition.

And in Bk. 2, Tom. 1, he says against the Apostolici51 that tradition is

necessary for the interpretation of Scripture. If he would understand this
only, that many things can be taken from the history of the church by which
certain passages of Scripture may be clarified, as where he says that it was a
custom

that Christians did not hire out their daughters to unbelievers, either Jews or
Gentiles, and that therefore many remained unmarried; this, I say, we would
not find difficult to accept. But Epiphanius goes farther

and places the traditions in opposition to the Scripture. For where Paul
writes in general: “If a girl marries, she does not sin,” Epiphanius sets
against it the tradition from these apocryphal Apostolic Constitutions, that it
is a sin to revert to marriage after one has decided on virginity, although
Jerome says on 1 Cor. 7: “If anyone has grown up in the state of virginity
and afterwards realizes that he has

been placed in the dilemma that he must either commit fornication or take a
wife, let him do what he

will; if he takes a wife, he does not sin.”

Thus Cyprian, Bk. 1, epistle 11, says: “If they have in faith dedicated
themselves to Christ, let them

persevere in this publicly and chastely. But if they will not or cannot
persevere, it is better to marry than to fall into the fire through their lusts.”
It is therefore a spurious tradition which Epiphanius adduces from the
apocryphal book, for it conflicts with the Scripture and is unknown to the
fathers. And from

this observation it can be understood whence the fathers, and especially

Epiphanius, took many such traditions which they embellish with this title,
and this example also shows what their authority was formerly.
Chrysostom, in his incomplete work on the Magi, where he maintains that
they came in the

second year after the birth of Christ, says: “I have heard some quoting from
a certain writing, which even if it is not certain, is nevertheless not
destructive of faith, etc.” And this tradition Epiphanius follows seriously.

Theophylact, however, having quoted this tradition, at once adds: “But you
must retain the other opinion as the better one.” Thus on the tradition
concerning Zacharias, the father of the Baptist, Matt.

23:35, Jerome says: “What has no authority from the Scriptures is rejected
as easily as it is approved.”

8 The fourth observation is that the fathers referred quite a few older
customs, when their origin
could not readily be shown, immediately back to the apostles, as handed
down by them, in order that

their authority might be greater; but that these did not have the apostles as
their authors can be clearly proved from other writings of the ancients.

Epiphanius steadfastly maintains that the church has the custom of fasting
on Wednesday and Friday

from the tradition of the apostles. Also the 40-day fast Ambrose, Jerome,
and others ascribe to a tradition of the apostles. But what and how much
credence is to be given to this tradition can be clearly

shown. For in Augustine’s Letter No. 86;52 a certain Urbicus defended the
universal necessity of fasting on the Sabbath from the tradition of Peter,
who, when he was about to dispute with Simon Magus on the

Lord’s Day, fasted on the previous day with the Roman church. Others,
however, contradicted and said

that the tradition of the apostles was to fast not on the Sabbath but on the
sixth day. Augustine replies:

“This is, indeed, the opinion of the majority, although most Romans insist it
is wrong. But if one answers that James taught in Jerusalem, John at
Ephesus, and the rest in other places what Peter taught

in Rome, that is, that one should fast on the Sabbath, but that the remaining
countries departed from this teaching while it remained in force in Rome,
and if, on the contrary it is said that the localities of the Occident had not
preserved the tradition of the apostles, while the lands of the Orient, from
which the

Gospel began to be preached, had remained with the tradition of the

apostles, then this is an interminable contention, causing dissensions and
endless questions. Therefore let there be one faith of
the whole church, even if the very unity of the faith is glorified by a variety
of customs, by which that

which is true in the faith is in no way hindered.” And later he says: “While I
revolve this in my mind, I

see that fasting is commanded in the Gospels and in the apostolic writings;
but on which days it is not

necessary to fast, and on which it is, I do not find determined by a

command of the Lord or of the apostles, etc.” The meaning is clear: and yet,
because the custom was old, many did not shrink from referring it to a
tradition of the apostles. Thus Augustine, in Letter No. 119, does say that
the 40-day fast has its authority from the fasting of Moses, Elias, and
Christ. But in Letter No. 86 he asserts that it was specified neither by the
Lord nor by the apostles on which days one must fast. Therefore he finally
concludes in Letter No. 119: “That these 40 days before Easter should be
observed the consensus of the

church has firmly established.” The reader sees how the fathers tried to
trace old customs back to the

traditions of the apostles, or to prove them from the Scripture, and how
uncertain this whole matter is.

Ambrose, indeed, asserts that the 40 days were laid on us by the example of
Christ. But Chrysostom, in

Homily 47 on Matthew, expressly denies this: “Christ,” he says, “does not

command that we should imitate His fasting, but says: ‘Learn from Me, for
I am gentle, etc’”

Irenaeus, according to Eusebius, Bk. 5, ch. 26, writes that there is debate
not only concerning the day

of Easter but also about the manner of fasting (namely, before Easter). For
some fasted one day, some
several, some 40 hours, an hour being reckoned for a day. “And this
variety,” he says, “began not only

in our time but long before us, etc.” It is therefore quite clear that the
assertion that the 40-day fast before Easter is a tradition of the apostles is
not true. For Irenaeus here says that before his time there was a custom
about the fast before Easter for simple, lowly people, for

designates the class of

the common man. And of this, Irenaeus says, it was not judged that it had to
be accurately observed, but

it was considered less important. Let the reader diligently consider this
passage about the true origin of the fast before Easter. And yet in the course
of time an apostolic tradition was made of it, and that by

leading men among the fathers.

Therefore it is not to be immediately believed when the fathers affirm

without certain proofs that something is a tradition of the apostles. For
Ambrose, Maximus of Turin, Theophilus, Jerome, and others assert that the
40-day fast is an apostolic tradition. But Socrates, Bk. 5, ch. 22, speaks of
great diversity in the fasting before Easter. He says the Romans fasted three
weeks before Easter, the Greeks

and Alexandrians six weeks, others seven, during which they fast only 15
days at intervals. And finally

he concludes: “Because no one can show a written command with respect

to this matter, it is clear that

the apostles left it free to the opinion and will of everyone.”

Epiphanius says against Aerius that there is a constitution of the apostles in

which they give directions also about fast days, and that nothing is to be
taken but bread, salt, and water. But Socrates

shows in detail that this is wrong and not apostolic.

I have treated this at somewhat greater length (for it is an outstanding
example), how in the time of

the fathers many customs began to be embellished with the title of apostolic
traditions, of which it is nevertheless certain that they were not handed
down by apostles. The controversy about the date of Easter is well known,
how the Romans asserted that their custom had been handed down by Peter
and

Paul, while the Asiatics on the contrary reported that they had received a
different tradition from John,

Philip, Polycarp, and others. The matter was fought out with great
bitterness. But Irenaeus, in Eusebius,

Bk. 5, ch. 26, calls it a tradition of ancient custom; again, a custom of the
elders. The reader sees that in the times following hard on the death of the
apostles disturbances were stirred up in the church under

the pretext of unwritten traditions and that old customs began to be

embellished with the title of apostolic traditions. For Socrates says, Bk. 5,
ch. 22: “The Gospels did not impose the yoke of slavery,

but men themselves, each in his place, for the sake of a repetition and
remembrance of the Passion, celebrated Easter and other festival days as
they chose from some custom. For neither the Savior nor the

apostles commanded it to be observed by any law, nor were punishments

threatened. For the aim of the

apostles was not to impose laws about festival days but to teach a right life
and piety. But it seems to me that, as many other things developed into
customs in various regions, so also the Easter festival, because none of the
apostles had decreed anything concerning it.” And later he says: “The men
in the West, indeed, say that their tradition is of Peter and Paul, but the
Asiatics say that theirs is of John. But neither side can supply a proof
handed down in writing.”
Epiphanius says: “The assemblies were ordained by the apostles to take
place on Wednesday, Friday,

and the Lord’s Day. But Socrates shows from many and various examples
that this is not certain. And

after he has quoted many things about the great diversity of rites, he finally
adds the memorable sentence: “I believe that the authors of this difference
were those who at various times were bishops in

the churches. But those who accepted such things made a sort of law out of
these added rites.” So says

Socrates. Therefore, at first they were customs; then they became laws;
later, that they might secure greater authority for those laws, they ascribed
them to the traditions of the apostles. These things are clear and teach us
much concerning the traditions which were observed under this title by
certain fathers

as if they had been received from the apostles.

Epiphanius, in Contra Aerium, calls prayers for the dead a tradition of the
church received from the fathers. Others, indeed, adorn this tradition of the
fathers with the title of apostolic tradition. So Chrysostom says in Homily
69: “Not rashly were these things sanctioned by the apostles, that at the
awe-inspiring mysteries commemoration of the dead should be made.”

And Damascenus says: “The apostles commanded that at the awe-inspiring

sacraments the departed

faithful should be remembered.” But Jerome and Gregory assert that the
apostles used no other prayers

during the celebration of the Eucharist except only the Lord’s Prayer. You
see, therefore, how certain it

is that the prayers for the dead are an apostolic tradition.

Tertullian, in De corona militis, cites many customs of which he says they
can be justified with no proof of Scripture but solely in the name of
tradition, hence, by virtue of custom. And all these traditions, the papalists
contend, must simply be received as apostolic, without any reservation.

However, Tertullian does not say that all these traditions have come from
the apostles, but he says only:

“Custom has strengthened the observance, which without doubt emanated

from tradition. For how could

anything be used if it was not previously handed down?” But I ask whence
it was handed down. From

the apostles? This Tertullian certainly does not affirm. For he adds: “Do you
not think that each believer is free to undertake and institute what is
agreeable to God, conducive to discipline, and profitable for

salvation?” Again he says: “Without disrespect to tradition, let each be

judged according to the transmitter, etc.” But those who came later simply
asserted that all these traditions are apostolic.

However, it should be observed that Tertullian is speaking of traditions

which may be estimated, each

according to its transmitter. Therefore not all traditions which are found
with the ancients are automatically apostolic.

By these clear examples it is shown sufficiently, I think, that one should not
at once simply agree, when the fathers assert without sure proofs that
something is an apostolic tradition; for that they ascribed many old customs
which had a different origin to the traditions of the apostles in order that
they might have greater authority the examples show. And in the
commendations of those traditions whose origin is uncertain there are at
times in the fathers exaggerations which go entirely too far, which, if they
are pressed too much without any moderation, are in no way in agreement
with or tolerable to
faith.

Such is the passage of Basil, in De Spiritu Sancto, ch. 27, if indeed this
discussion about tradition is by Basil. For Erasmus, not without cause,
judged it to be spurious. Basil there cites certain traditions which, though
they may not be found stated in so many syllables in the Scripture, are
nevertheless as far

as the sense is concerned, in agreement with the testimonies of Scripture, as

the confession of faith which is made at Baptism; likewise, the renunciation
of the devil, and the doxology “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, with
the Holy Spirit, etc.” Concerning this kind of traditions there is no
controversy between us; for what can be proved with testimonies of the
Scripture we gladly receive.

But he cites also certain other unwritten customs (for so he calls them) and
asserts that these have come to us in a mystery from the tradition of the
apostles. And among these he reckons what is spoken

in the celebration of the Eucharist outside of the words of institution, both

before and after. Yet Gregory says, Bk. 7, Letter No. 63: “It was the custom
of the apostles to consecrate the host for offering with only the Lord’s
Prayer.” Basil asserts furthermore that it is an apostolic tradition to turn to
the east in prayer. But Socrates, Bk. 5, ch. 22, says that in Antioch of Syria,
which was a most renowned apostolic

church, the temple has a general position; for the altar does not face toward
the east but toward the west.

Basil, however, possibly has this in common with others, that he ascribes
old customs without certain

proof to traditions of the apostles.

But when he adds that these traditions have the same power for piety as
those which are contained in
the Scripture, so that if these customs are not observed, the very preaching
of the Gospel is shrunk to a

mere name, this, I say, manifestly conflicts with the faith itself; for this not
even the papalists dare to affirm concerning most of these traditions. For if
anyone is baptized according to the institution of Christ and is not
immersed three times or does not receive the sign of the cross, the question
is whether

the Baptism is either false or ineffective. Basil declares that the threefold
immersion, making the sign of the cross, the consecration of the water of
Baptism, the anointing with oil, etc., have the same power for piety as
Baptism itself. Was Christ, then, not correctly baptized, and did the apostles
not baptize anyone correctly in Acts? Lombard certainly says, Bk. 4,
distinction 3: “The Sacrament of Baptism consists in

two things, namely, in the Word and the element. Therefore, even if other
things are lacking which have

been instituted for the adornment of the sacrament, it is not for that reason
less a true sacrament and holy, if the Word is there, and the element, etc.” I
believe no one, even if he is a Jesuit, is so shameless that he dares to affirm
that worshiping in spirit and in truth and turning to the east in prayer have
identical power for piety. The threefold immersion, the words of invocation
while the bread of the Eucharist is shown, the prohibition of kneeling
between Easter and Pentecost, have long ago ceased to

be in use with the papalists themselves.

Therefore that general exaggeration of Basil concerning the unwritten

traditions, that they have the same power for piety as the things instituted
and ordained in Scripture, can by no means stand or be defended; nor do I
see how even Andrada with his poisonous boastful talk can attempt it.
Therefore

such assertions and exaggerations of the fathers concerning the traditions

are not to be accepted rashly but must be read with great judgment. And it
is not without reason that Erasmus has grave doubts about
the genuineness of this passage in Basil.

9 The fifth observation is that many things crept into the locus communis of
traditions from the institutions and observance of the Montanists. Therefore
watchful judgment is necessary lest we accept

Montanist traditions as apostolic. For Montanus embraced the doctrine of

the Old and the New Testament, but he taught that besides this also the
customs delivered by the Paraclete are necessary, because Christ had said
that the apostles had not been able to bear all things, but that many things
had

been reserved for the Paraclete. Thus Tertullian, after he became a

Montanist, says in De velandis virginibus: “So long as the law of faith
remains, the other things of discipline and life permit the newness of
correction. For why is it that, while the devil is always active and is daily
adding to the inventions of iniquity, the work of God has either ceased or
has ceased to go forward, although the Lord

sent the Paraclete, that when human limitation could not at once grasp all
things, the training might gradually be guided, ordered, and led to
perfection by that vicar of the Lord, the Holy Spirit? For He

says: ‘I have yet many things,53 etc.’”

Again he says: “The church through the Gospel boiled forth into its youth;
now, through the Paraclete, it reaches its calm maturity.” Therefore the old
customs of which mention is made in Tertullian are not all apostolic
traditions, but many have come forth from the “paraclete” of Montanus.

And yet some of the fathers peddle all traditions of Tertullian as apostolic.
But you say: “Montanus was

condemned on account of heresy. Therefore the church did not retain his
institutions.” Let us see, therefore, what were the customs of the
Montanists, for from them we can conclude whether any tares

have from there crept into the customs of the church.

Apollonius says of Montanus in Eusebius, Bk. 5, ch. 18: “This is he who
taught the dissolution of marriages.” For so says Tertullian in De
exhortatione castitatis. But did the Montanists destroy marriages already
contracted? Not at all, but what the Montanist dissolution of marriages is is
gathered

from Tertullian, who teaches that the Paraclete has done away with second,
third, etc., marriages and established a onetime-only marriage. But
principally Tertullian urges this in the case of priests, because Paul says: “A
bishop should be the husband of one wife.” And because the true church did
not understand Paul so, he says: “How many twice-married men preside
among you in the churches and are

not ashamed when this is read to them?” Here you have what the Montanist
dissolution of marriages really is. Now, however, plainly similar things are
read among many of the older writers against second

marriages, as something they did not want to have blessed. Epiphanius, for
one, expressly argues for the

necessity of marriage-only-once on the part of priests, and others follow

him. But whence did this arise?

Not from the Scripture but from the traditions. But from which traditions?
From the apostolic traditions? So the papalists argue, to be sure, but a
comparison with Tertullian shows that this is a survival from the ordinances
of Montanus.

This also belongs to the Montanist destruction of marriages, which

Tertullian discusses in his book De exhortatione castitatis, that marriage is
by concession but that the will of God is sanctification according to the
statement: “You shall be holy, as I am holy.” He enumerates these kinds of
sanctification: (1) virginity from birth; (2) virginity from Baptism, which
either purifies itself in marriage by agreement or perseveres in widowhood
of its own will; (3) in the third class, after the one

marriage has been interrupted, sex is thereafter renounced. He also argues

that marriage is by permission. But what is permitted does not come from
the pure and entire will but, as it were, from the

unwilling will. Also this “It is better to marry than to burn,” he argues,
pertains to those who are married or widowed and that it is the same as if
the statement were: “It is better to lack one eye than two.”

Therefore it is not good to marry but a sort of lesser evil. And he argues that
this is the counsel of Paul as a man, not, however, a precept of God. He also
raises for himself the objection: “Therefore you say

you now dissolve also the first marriages.” But he answers: “Not without
reason, because also these rest

upon that which is fornication, and because of this affinity with fornication
it is better not to touch a woman.” In the same place he also disputes against
the first and the second marriage and quotes these

words: “Ye shall be holy, for I am holy.” “With the holy You are holy.” “To
set the mind on the flesh is

death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life.”

These things I have noted here in order that the reader may observe that
clearly the same teaching and

even the same words are found in the discussions of the papalists
concerning celibacy. If therefore they

argue that these are traditions, we concede this, but we submit that they are
not apostolic but Montanist

traditions.

The other is what Apollonius ascribes to Montanus, that is, that he

prescribed laws about fasting. Was
this the error of Montanus that he taught that men should fast? By no
means. For Augustine rightly says:

“I see in the Gospels and in the apostolic epistles that fasting is prescribed.”
But Montanus made rules

concerning the time, the kind, or manner, of fasting, and that not only for
the sake of order but with the understanding that these are necessary and
belong to worship. For that this is the force and meaning of

the word

(“to make a law”) is clearly gathered from Socrates, Bk. 5, ch. 22; namely,
when it

is not left free to everyone’s opinion and will, but when a binding law is
passed with threats added about sin and punishments if it is not observed in
this way. But is there not in the whole papal realm such legislation about
fasting? And, indeed, they bring forth from Epiphanius the assertion that
this is an apostolic tradition; but Socrates expressly denies this, as we have
shown above. Yes, when we inquire

concerning the first beginning of these laws, we find that these tares
gradually crept into churchly customs from the seedbeds of Montanus.

In order that this whole matter may be the more clear, I shall copy here a
passage from Tertullian’s

book De jejunio, where he relates that the Montanists were reproved by the
Catholics for these reasons:

“They accuse us,” he says, “that we observe our own fastings; that we
usually draw out our limited fasts

into the evening; that we also observe the eating of dry foods, and also that
we abstain from bathing.

They accuse us of innovations, which they maintain are unlawful. ”54 And
the opinion of the true church he states thus against the Montanists: That set
days of fasting were abolished already in the ancient times of the Law and
of the prophets; that therefore fasting is henceforth to be an indifferent thing
according to everyone’s will, not because of the command of a new
discipline but according to the times

and circumstances of every individual; that also the apostles had observed it
in this way, in that they did not impose any other yoke of certain fasts
which had to be observed by all, also not that of the limited

fasts, which indeed had their own days, Wednesday and Friday; and they
still went along with them passively, but not because of a legal command;
that the eating of dry food is the new name of an artificial duty and close to
a heathen superstition; since faith, which is free in Christ, owes abstinence
from certain foods not even to the Jewish Law, since it has once and for all
gained admittance to every

kind of meat on the market from that apostle who curses those who, as they
prohibit marriage, so also

command to abstain from foods ordained by God; “and therefore we

(Montanists) were already then marked out as departing from the faith in
the last times, giving heed to the seducing spirits of the world and the
doctrines of those who speak lies. So, say they, we are rebuked with the
Galatians as observers

of days, months, and years. In the meantime they throw at us that Isaiah
declared that the Lord has chosen not abstention from food but works of
righteousness, and that the Lord Himself in the Gospel

briefly replied to all scrupulousness about foods that a man is not defiled by
what is put into the mouth, since He Himself ate and drank until men said:
‘Behold, the man is a glutton and wine bibber.’ The apostle also teaches that
food does not commend us to God. And they add: ‘In the two
commandments

of love hangs the whole Law and the Prophets, not in the emptiness of my
lungs and bowels, etc’” 55
Thus Tertullian describes what the church at that time criticized in the fasts
of the Montanists and with what arguments it fought against their hypocrisy.
I have cited this passage because also among the

fathers, but principally among the papalists, these things are now adorned
with the name of apostolic traditions. The reader will see clearly from this
report of Tertullian that these were Montanist ordinances, which were in the
beginning earnestly reproved and refuted by the true church but later
through the show of pretended sanctity gradually began to creep into the
church itself. After that the title of apostolic traditions was added, but
falsely, as this description of Tertullian shows. Let the reader diligently note
this passage, for much can be judged from it.

In his book De poenitentia, Tertullian reports of Montanus that he grants

only one repentance after Baptism. But this dogma Clement of Alexandria
adorns with the title of apostolic tradition.

In De resurrectione carnis, Tertullian cites as ceremonies in connection

with Baptism the anointing, the signing with the cross, and the laying on of
hands. And he credits them not only with decorum and a

meaning but with spiritual efficacy, for he says: “The flesh is anointed that
the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed that the soul may be
fortified, the flesh is overshadowed by the laying on of hands

that also the soul may be illuminated by the Spirit. ”56 That this is
Montanistic is concluded from the fact that in this very passage he adds
eating of dry food, filth of body, and marrying only once, which are

certainly Montanistic. But where is there a command and promise

concerning these signs and their spiritual efficacy? The reply of Tertullian is
found in De corona militis, namely, that the Paraclete was sent after the
apostles in order that He might order the discipline and bring it to
perfection. Cyprian, a too eager student of Tertullian, was drawing from the
workshop of Montanus when he tried to establish

his rebaptism with observations of this kind. “It is necessary,” he says, Bk.
1, epistle 2, “that the water be previously cleansed and sanctified by the
priest, that he by his baptism may be able to wash away the

sins of the person who is baptized. But how can he cleanse and sanctify the
water who is himself unclean? It is also necessary that he be anointed who
has been baptized that, after he has received the

anointing, he may be anointed by God and able to possess in himself the

grace of Christ.”

And Cornelius, in Eusebius, Bk.6, ch. 33,57 tells that Novatus was baptized
in bed during an illness.

And he adds: “If he can be said to have received it. For he neither obtained
the other things of which he

needed to become a partaker, according to the canon of the church, nor was
he sealed by the bishop.

And since he did not obtain these, how could he have obtained the Holy
Spirit?” This altogether too Montanizing statement was later corrected, as
Jerome clearly maintains against the Luciferians, that in a

true Baptism the Holy Ghost is imparted, even though the laying on of
hands by the bishop does not follow. And Lombard, Bk. 4, distinction 3,
says: “The Sacrament of Baptism consists in two things, namely, in the
Word and the element. Therefore, even if other things are lacking which
have been instituted for the adornment of the sacrament, it is not for this
reason less a true sacrament and holy, if the Word is there, and the element,
etc.” And yet the papalists are now waging so great a fight for the

rest of these observances under the title and pretext of apostolic traditions,
although one can conclude

from Tertullian and Cyprian what their origin is. For in Irenaeus no mention
at all is made of such traditions, but he says of the followers of the heretic
Marcus that they anoint their initiates with the juice of the balsam, as the
Heracleonites anoint their dying, and thus redeem them. ”58
Innocent, De sacra unctione, says that the bishops among the Greeks are
not usually anointed when

they are consecrated. He therefore admonishes them to follow the custom

held by the Roman Church.

And when he had treated at length concerning all kinds of anointings, he

finally concluded: “The church

does not Judaize when it celebrates the sacrament of the anointing, as the
ancients falsely say.” You hear that the ancients rejected the anointing as
Judaizing.

From the Montanists Cyprian had the teaching that absolution is not valid
unless the canonical satisfactions have been completely performed, as he
asserts in the sermon concerning alms that the sins

committed before Baptism are forgiven through the blood and sanctification
of Christ, but those which

are committed later must be purged away through the sacrifices of our own
works. But when in a later

generation, on account of the great number of penitential canons, that

dogma, which conflicts with

Scripture, could not remain, the penitential canons at first were relaxed by
indulgence, and later they fell away completely. And yet we must now fight
about satisfactions. When no relaxation of the penitential

canons was necessary any longer, the sale of papal indulgences was
introduced. And all these things, alas, are now peddled as apostolic
traditions. But every matter can best be judged from its origin.

The title of apostolic traditions ought not therefore to terrify us when they
cannot be proved by any

testimony of Scripture, for what tares have crept into the church under the
title and pretext of traditions, and from where, has been shown by a number
of examples, but especially the traditions which are found

in Tertullian, which cannot be proved from Scripture, ought to be suspect on

account of his Montanism.

10 In the fifth 59 place, this must be considered diligently, that the papalists
have and fight for so many such traditions for which they cannot even bring
forth any testimonies from approved writings of

the ancients, but are compelled either to invent or use apocryphal,

corrupted, or spurious writings falsely ascribed to ancient men. This
observation, rightly considered, will show how much faith should

be given to most papalist traditions. Andrada corrupts the words of Ignatius,

which are found in Eusebius, through a manifest falsification, as if Ignatius
had meant that besides the Scriptures also other traditions of the apostles
were very necessary for the perfecting of the Christian religion, although
Eusebius, Bk. 3, ch. 35, 60 says only this, that Ignatius, on his journey
through Asia to martyrdom in Rome, admonished the churches to beware of
the heresies that had recently sprung up and to adhere to

the apostolic tradition. And he adds: “When he was being led to martyrdom,
he considered it necessary

that the apostolic tradition, for the sake of caution, should also be inscribed
or expressed in writing.”

You hear that, when many strange and false things were being foisted on the
churches under the title of

unwritten traditions, Ignatius judged that it was necessary to have a written

demonstration showing which traditions were truly apostolic.

Jerome says that also Hegesippus committed the apostolic traditions to

writing. And these writings about the traditions of the apostles God would
not have allowed to be lost if they had been as necessary
for the welfare of the church as the canonical Scripture itself, which God
most miraculously preserved

in its entirety during so many terrible persecutions, heresies, and

corruptions. But it seems very likely

that these writings of Ignatius and Hegesippus, if they ever existed, were
neglected and finally suppressed by the masters of ceremonies, who saw
that the papalist traditions could not be supported from them but would
rather be exposed as not similar to the apostolic traditions but rather
contrary to

them. Therefore a new stratagem was thought out, namely, that under the
name of ancient men, spurious

writings were either invented, or once they had been invented, were used,
or, if any such were in existence, they were altered for the purpose of
strengthening the state of the papal kingdom. And of this

stratagem I shall note only a few examples.

There are found in the books of the councils epistles and many extensive
writings of the first and oldest popes, who were renowned for both learning
and piety. Into these writings they have so impudently inserted the whole
state of the papal kingdom as it is now that the fraud clearly appears that

they are counterfeit and spurious. The judgment of Erasmus on these

epistles is well known. There are

also the judgments of others, who show the falsification both from the
phrasing and from the circumstances of the times, as well as from the
matters themselves. I shall therefore put down only the

judgment of Nicholas of Cusa, which, because it comes from a cardinal,

they cannot repudiate. He says,

in De concordantia catholica, Bk. 3, ch. 2: “In my judgment these things

regarding Constantine are apocryphal, as perhaps also certain other long
and great writings which are ascribed to St. Clement and

to Pope Anacletus. If anyone would diligently read through these writings

and would compare their times with their writings and thereafter with the
works of all fathers up to Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose; and if he would
also use and keep in mind the acts of the councils where authentic writings

are quoted, he would find that no mention is made in all those writings of
the epistles mentioned, and

the epistles themselves also betray themselves when they are compared
with the time of these saints,

etc.” So says Cardinal Cusa. And yet the papalists attempt to defend and
support from these spurious epistles their foremost traditions which cannot
be proved with any testimony of Scripture.

The writings of Clement of Rome, with the exception of the Epistle to the
Corinthians, were recognized as spurious already in the time of Eusebius.
And later, in Distinction 15, in the chapter beginning Sancta Romana, they
were placed among the apocrypha. There are indeed many writings
published under the name of Clement, and new ones are being put forth
daily which try to draw the cloak of apostolic tradition over papalist
corruptions, abuses, and superstitions. For from there Andrada

tries to prove that holy water and salt is an apostolic institution.

The legends of the saints have already begun, on account of their too
palpable shamelessness, to be

despised by both the learned and the common people. Therefore they
pretend that lately there was found

a very old writing concerning the lives of the apostles, whose author they
have made Abdias, a Babylonian. Some say it is by Julius Africanus, but
this has no true witness in all antiquity. In it Thomas appears after his death
and preaches; in it Matthew consecrates 200 virgins and places the veil
upon them, and what is more, he is killed because he taught that a virgin
consecrated to Christ was not permitted to marry the king. He also teaches
in it that one must enter heaven through merits. There Matthew also
institutes the 40-day fast and the fasts of certain other times; he also forbids
the eating of flesh on certain days. There Andrew says: “Also for the dead
we lay hold on Thy goodness, Lord.”

There it is also taught that Andrew is to be invoked after his death to have
mercy on a certain harlot.

There Thomas admonishes certain matrons who were converted to Christ to

renounce the conjugal custom and to vow perpetual chastity. There it is also
reported that Christ appeared and recalled from

the conjugal custom to celibacy certain persons who were getting married.
There John approves of the

deed of Crusiana, that she had without her husband’s consent uttered the
vow of celibacy. There the Ephesians build a church in the name of John,
which they dedicate to him in his lifetime; although Augustine says: “We do
not erect temples to the saints, etc.” And such utterly shameless lies,
invented

under the title of apostolic traditions, they want us to accept and venerate
with equal devotion and reverence as the Holy Scripture itself.

They say that Martial was one of the 70 disciples, and now a number of his
epistles are carried about

that were unknown to Eusebius, Jerome, Gennadius, etc. In them many

things are said not

inappropriately. Yet certain things are mixed in under the title of tradition
which betray themselves, that they are not apostolic, as when he says that
when the altars of the demons were destroyed, the altar of

the unknown God was saved and dedicated in the name of God and of
Stephen. Again, he says that Baptism is sanctified by the sign of the cross.
There it is said: “Although Valeria was the spouse of the
king, yet was she led through the preaching of Martial to vow virginity of
mind and body and was for

this reason beheaded.” It is said there also that the prince of Toulouse had
avoided the tie of fleshly marriage because of the preaching of Martial.
There Martial also says that it is necessary that something

else be written than what is written in the sacred writings, although in

Eusebius, Bk. 5, ch. 16, and in

Nicephorus, Bk. 4, ch. 23, Apollinarius, writing against Montanus who

asserted that many things outside of the Old and the New Testament were
necessary for religion, very modestly says: “I have not

written until now, not because I could not have given witness to the truth
but because I feared lest I should seem to some to add something to the
books of the Gospel and the New Testament by my writing, to which
nothing can be added and from which nothing can be taken away by anyone
who desires to order his life according to the Gospel.” Let the reader
preserve this testimony of the ancient

church concerning the books of the New Testament.

These things I have related only as examples, that the reader may consider
with what faithfulness the

papalists treat the locus communis of traditions, to which they yet connect
the general decree that we should receive and venerate dreams and lies with
equal reverence and devotion as the divinely inspired

Scripture itself. That the epistles of Ignatius were in existence not only in
the time of Eusebius but also

still in the time of Jerome is certain; now they are circulated in Latin, and
they are also published in Greek, and they have many statements which are
not to be despised, especially as they are read in the
Greek. But there are also not a few other things mixed in which certainly do
not represent apostolic dignity. For that those epistles are now adulterated is
gathered from this: Theodorus quotes from the epistle to the church at
Smyrna the statement of Ignatius against some heretics: “They do not
accept the

Eucharist and the offerings because they do not confess that the Eucharist is
the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, which the
Father in His goodness raised up again.” This sentence William Wideford
read as late as the year 1396 in that epistle of Ignatius. But now it is read

neither in the Greek nor in the Latin epistle to Smyrnians, nor in others.

In Dialogus contra Pelagianos, Bk. 3, Jerome says: “Ignatius, an apostolic

man and a martyr, writes boldly: ‘The Lord chose those to be apostles who
were sinners above all men.’” But this statement the

epistles of Ignatius which are now found do not have.

The man who published these Greek epistles remarks that many sentences
were quoted from Ignatius

by the ancients in other and more words than are now extant and known.
Therefore we have reason to

have doubts about these epistles of Ignatius which are now passed under his
name; for they appear to

have been changed in many places to bolster the state of the papal kingdom.
And I judge that God caused certain spurious patches to prove themselves
to be such by their own marks. For in Epistle 5 to the Philippians we read
thus today: “Whoever fasts on a Sunday or Sabbath is a murderer of Christ.

Whoever observes the Passover with the Jews, shall have his portion with
those who killed the Lord and

His apostles.” There is no doubt that these are spurious, for Augustine says
altogether the opposite concerning the apostles to Casulanus, as does also
Socrates, Bk. 5.

What is therefore to be held of the things which lack the witness of

Scripture, and which are quoted

from these epistles of Ignatius as traditions of the apostles, is not obscure.

Jerome did not attribute canonical authority to the epistles of Ignatius while
they were yet whole and

genuine. For in Dialogus Contra Pelagianos, Bk. 3, when he had quoted

some things from Ignatius and from the Gospel According to the Hebrews,
he says: “And if you do not use these testimonies as an authority, use them
only because of their antiquity, to see what men in the church held, etc.”
What importance, therefore, shall now be attached to them, adulterated as
they are today, especially when the

papalists attempt to establish from them what can be proved with no

testimony of Scripture? In the same

way certain spurious additions have been interpolated in the writings of

almost all the fathers under their names. And of all the writings it is from
these that the papalists most willingly take their proofs.

And who that is of sound mind will not deservedly hold suspect the whole
business of the unwritten

traditions as it is proposed by the Council of Trent, when he sees that the

papalists cannot retain and uphold these their traditions unless they either
invent false and spurious writings, or put forth those invented by others, and
either falsify genuine writings of the ancients or use adulterated ones, as we
have shown by a number of examples.

11 Finally, also this observation will give the reader food for reflection, that
the papalists are not afraid to refer many things to the traditions of the
apostles about which it can be shown from papalist
writers themselves that they were instituted by, and had their origin from,
other much later authors. It is therefore smoke what they palm off on the
unlearned under the title of apostolic traditions.

In the book Extra de celebratione Missarum, in the chapter beginning Cum

Marthae, a certain archbishop of Lyons marvels that anyone has attempted
to assert in the canon of the Mass that Christ

said more than any one of the evangelists asserts, namely: “This is the cup
of the New and eternal Testament, the mystery of faith, etc.” Innocent
replies to him: “Many things were omitted by the evangelists which the
apostles later either supplemented by word or expressed in an act.” But
papalists

writers have noted by which Roman pontiffs those words were added.
Therefore the gloss without dissimulation openly confesses: “The church
observes many things which have not been handed down

by the apostles, yet, since they have been approved by long use, they are not
of less authority.”

If anyone manifests any doubt whether the whole canon of the Mass
together with the other theatrical

pomp is from apostolic tradition, he is struck down by the anathema. But it

can be shown from papalist

writers that for over 600 years Roman pontiffs labored in adding, until the
idol of the papalist Mass sewn together by various sly strokes, was
completed. And it is shown, indeed, in the histories concerning the
individual parts of the Mass and of the canon, who are their authors and at
which times

they came into being. But now, alas, we are to believe as an article of faith
that all these things have been instituted and handed down by the apostles,
although Platina himself affirms that the apostles used
only the Lord’s Prayer in addition to the words of institution in the
celebration of the Eucharist. And Gregory insists that the canon was
composed only a little before his time by a certain schoolman. How

can that have been transmitted by the apostles which during 600 years had
so many different authors, or

rather, cobblers, for its origin?

Alexander ordered water to be mixed with the wine in the celebration of the
Eucharist; he also instituted the holy water and the salt.

Telesphorus instituted the 40-day fast.

Hyginus instituted the anointing and the dedication of temples, which

Polydorus ascribes to Pius, who publicly consecrated the first temple of the
Christians to St. Prudentia.

Calistus instituted the fasting of the four seasons.

Felix instituted the consecration of altars.

Sylvester instituted the confirmation of children and assigned the anointing

to the bishops.

Felix IV instituted that the sick should be anointed before death.

Syricius added the memory and invocation of the saints to the Mass.

Pelagius added the annual memorials of the dead to the Mass.

To sum it up, such things can be related from the histories about individual
popes in order. It is sufficient for us to have shown by a few examples that
the things which the papalists today are not afraid to trace back to the
apostles themselves, as transmitted and instituted by them, have far other
authors and much later ones than the apostles, and that this is proved from
those historians who were
devoted to the papal rule. Thus in the time of Augustine the opinion about
purgatory was uncertain and

doubtful; but now it is an undoubted and most reliable tradition of the

apostles. This account concerning

the papalist traditions I wanted to arrange in a simple order, in order that the
reader might be able to consider more correctly what a catchall of
corruptions and superstitions that decree of the Synod of Trent is which
commands us to receive and venerate the unwritten traditions with the same
devotion and

reverence as the very Word of God comprehended in the Holy Scriptures.

12 Now to bring this topic concerning traditions to a close! We have shown

that we do not simply reject all traditions which are observed under this
name and title among the ancients. For what is either

contained in Scripture or is in agreement with it we do not disapprove. The

question, however, is rather

concerning those traditions which (as Andrada says) cannot be proved by

any testimony of Scripture. In

the case of these the simple assertion that they are apostolic tradition does
not suffice. For with respect to this kind of traditions we have shown at
great length both the mistakes of some good men and the

frauds of evil men. Nor does it suffice if one of the fathers says that it is a
tradition which has come from the apostles. For we have shown by a
number of examples that also those which bore this title and

cloak were often false. The best and safest counsel is therefore, as Irenaeus
says, that what Polycarp had related from tradition was all in agreement
with the Holy Scriptures. And as Socrates says: “When different traditions
of the apostles were bandied about, because no proof could be shown from
the Scripture, it was judged that the apostles had not decreed anything
concerning such matters.” Let that
therefore stand what Jerome says, that the sword of the Word of God strikes
through all things which

are put forth without authority and testimonies of the Scriptures as by

apostolic tradition.

13 And because we have shown that the ancients, when they speak of
unwritten traditions, do not properly speak of certain dogmas of faith which
must be believed without any testimony of Scripture but chiefly about
certain rites or observances which have no express command in Scripture,
Andrada will perhaps ask whether we simply disapprove and condemn all
such rites? And although it is not our

plan to explain the dispute about indifferent things now, nevertheless, I shall
briefly reply: “Rites which are in harmony with Scripture are rightly to be
retained, but those which conflict with Scripture must by

a just judgment and without rashness be rejected and abolished. But if the
question is concerning indifferent rites which do not conflict with the
Scripture, the answer is simple and clear: “If they are not put forth with the
understanding that they are necessary for worship to earn merit but solely to
serve order, decorum, and edification and do not conflict with Christian
liberty, a decision can be made concerning them according as it appears to
be conducive to the edification of the church. For faith is not bound to
certain rites instituted outside of the Word of God, but it is free, in which
liberty, however, regard must be had for offense and for those who are weak
in the faith. But with all these conditions, be

they ever so equitable and in harmony with the Scriptures, our adversaries
are not satisfied; but when

they can do nothing more, they shield themselves with the appeal to
antiquity and established custom.

We therefore reply out of their own law, Distinction 8: “Custom without

truth is ancient error. Let no one set custom opposite reason and truth,
because reason and truth always exclude custom.”
In his discussions concerning the Old and the New Testament Augustine
says: “If we are to look back

to long custom or to antiquity alone, then also murderers and adulterers, and
similar persons can defend

their crimes in this way, because they are ancient.”

14 This debate concerning the Scripture and concerning the traditions I

have carried out at somewhat greater length than the established plan of the
examination allows. For I see that the papalists place the defense of their
whole cause in this debate, and now that this has been correctly explained,
progress in

the remaining matters will be easier. In these I shall try to be as brief as

possible. For complete and adequate explanations are available in other
writings of our men, which I do not mean to repeat. The other decrees of the
Synod of Trent we shall therefore examine in such a way that the
explanations of

my opponent, Andrada, will tell us how most things in those decrees must
be understood.

38 The reference is to Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Bk. 7, ch. 17.

39 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Bk. 1, ch. 1.

40 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Bk. 1, ch. 1.

41 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Bk. 6, ch. 7.

42 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Bk. 1, ch. 5.

43 The reference should be to Bk. 2, ch. 22, par. 5.

44 Clement, Bk. 7, ch. 7.

45 Shepherd of Hermas, Bk. 3, similitude 9, ch. 16.

46 Clement, Bk. 5, ch. 10.

47 Clement, Bk. 6, ch. 5.

48 Ibid., ch. 16.

49 Ibid., Bk. 3, ch. 9.

50 In the Benedictine edition, Letter No. 164, ch. 3.

51 See note 35.

52 In the Benedictine edition, Letter No. 36.

53 Tertullian, De velandis virginibus, ch. 1.

54 Tertullian, De jejunio, ch. 1.

55 Ibid., ch. 2.

56 Reference is not to De resurrectione carnis but to De baptismo, chs. 7–8.

57 The reference should be to chapter 43 instead of 33.

58 Irenaeus, Contra haereses, Bk. 1, ch. 21.

59 This should read “sixth.”

60 Reference is to ch. 36 instead of 35.

Third Topic

CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN

The First Decree of the Fifth Session of the Council of Trent, June 17, 1546

In order that our Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please

God, may, after it has been purged of errors, continue in its purity whole
and unharmed, and that the Christian people may not be
carried about by every wind of doctrine, although that old serpent, the
perpetual enemy of the human

race, among the very many evils by which the church of God is disturbed in
these our times, has also

stirred up not only old but also new dissensions about original sin and its
remedy, the most holy ecumenical and general Tridentine Synod,
legitimately assembled in the Holy Spirit, with the same three legates of the
Holy See presiding in it, wishing now to undertake to recall the erring and
to strengthen the wavering, following the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures
and of the holy fathers and of

the most approved councils and the judgment and consensus of the church
itself, ordains, confesses, and

declares these things concerning original sin:

If anyone does not confess that Adam, the first man, when he had
transgressed the command of God

in Paradise, at once lost the holiness and righteousness into which he had
been placed and that he incurred through the offense of this kind of
transgression the wrath and indignation of God and death,

too, with which God had before threatened him, and with death captivity
under the power of him who

thereafter had the power of death, that is, the devil, and that the whole
Adam through the offense of that transgression was changed for the worse
in body and soul, let him be anathema.

If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam harmed only him and not
his descendants, that he lost only for himself and not for us the holiness and
righteousness which he had received from God, or

that he, defiled through the sin of disobedience, brought only death and
punishments of the body upon
the entire human race, but not also sin, which is the death of the soul, let
him be anathema, because he

contradicts the apostle, who says: “By one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin; and so death passed over to all men, because all have
sinned.”

If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which in its origin is one and is
passed on by propagation, not

by imitation, and which is in all, and everyone’s own, is removed either

through the powers of human

nature or through some other remedy than through the merit of the one
Mediator, Christ Jesus, our Lord,

who has reconciled us to God by His blood, having been made for us
righteousness, sanctification, and

redemption, or denies that the merit of Jesus Christ, rightly conferred

through the Sacrament of Baptism

in the form of the church, is applied to adults as well as to infants, let him
be anathema! Because there is no other name under heaven given to men by
which we must be saved. Wherefore it is said: “Behold the

lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” Also: “As many of
you as have been baptized

have put on Christ.”

If anyone denies that infants recently born from the wombs of their mothers
are to be baptized, even

though they have sprung from baptized parents, or says that they are indeed
baptized for the remission

of sins but that they draw nothing of original sin from Adam that needs to
be expiated through the washing of regeneration in order that they may
obtain eternal life, so that in them the form of Baptism

for the remission of sins is understood to be not true but false, let him be
anathema! Because what the

apostle said: “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and
so death passed over to all

men, because all have sinned,” must not be understood differently from the
way the Catholic Church,

spread everywhere, has always understood it. For on account of this rule of
faith from the tradition of

the apostles, also infants who as yet have not been able to do anything
sinful of themselves are truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them
might be cleansed through regeneration what they contracted through
generation. For “unless anyone is born again by water and the Holy Spirit,
he cannot

enter into the kingdom of God.”

Examination

Most of the words of this decree have been taken from the writings of the
purer antiquity, and are in

agreement with the Scrpiture. Indeed, there was no need for this decree on
account of our churches, for the contentions which have been stirred up
about original sin in our time by the Anabaptists and other

fanatics have been explained and refuted with the utmost diligence by our
men. Accordingly, as it is seemly that one should simply accept the things
which have been said moderately, appropriately, and correctly, and not to
attack them with sophistical arguments, so we would certainly not search
too scrupulously into this decree concerning original sin. But Andrada, who
knows and sees through the more secret mysteries of the Tridentine
Council, brings to light something from them, which I, on account of my
simplicity, would not have been able to observe in this decree; nevertheless,
if we observe it, it will teach us many things about the stratagems of the
Tridentine Synod. For he says:

“When the theologians were laboring to explain how the transgression of

Adam in us could have the force of sin and how it was able to make us
sinners, the Tridentine Council, when it was defining original sin to be truly
the sin peculiar to everyone, nevertheless intentionally wrapped its real
nature in silence and so left it free to everyone to have his opinion.” And
later he says: “When, therefore, the question was considered not only
among the heretics but also among Catholics what is the nature and

definition of original sin, and all were pulled apart to contrary opinions in
an undecided debate, the Council of Trent, as also certain other councils,
when they had defined that all draw original sin from

Adam, deliberately passed over the question what that sin is and dismissed
it. Therefore they left us freedom of opinion.” Thus says Andrada. But lest
the reader think that Andrada wants to say of original

sin what David says: “Who can discern his errors? Clear Thou me from
hidden faults,” or what Jeremiah says, “The heart of man is corrupt and
incomprehensible,” it must be explained what that is

which he says the Tridentine Council “deliberately wrapped in silence.”

SECTION I

The Opinion of the Papalists Concerning Original Sin

1 Some Scholastic writers argue that original sin is merely a deficiency and
not some positive evil condition inhering in human nature; that, although
the original righteousness was lost, that which is from nature has
nevertheless remained unchanged in man. Others argue that the tinder of sin
inheres as

an unwholesome quality in the flesh only and inclines the sensitive appetite
and, through its mediation,
also the will downward. Some place the tinder in the sensitive appetite and
think that the higher part of

reason is devoid of all corruption, free and unharmed, except that it can be
inclined a little to lower things from elsewhere. And many argue that this
tinder is not part of the nature of original sin. There are those who hold that
original sin is neither a deficiency nor some positive evil condition in man,
but only guilt on account of the fall of Adam, without any evil condition
inhering in us. We ask now what the

Council of Trent has decreed with respect to these opinions. I certainly

would judge that those profane

opinions were disapproved in the words of the decree. But Andrada, the
interpreter of the council, says

that this decree was drawn up with such cunning that neither these nor
similar opinions of papal theologians about original sin should be
condemned, but should be left quite free. Let the reader observe

this well!

2 Let us now come to certain controversies of our time. After the colloquy
of Worms, in the year 1542, Albert Pighius published a rather long writing
on original sin, in which in sum he explains his position as follows: “Three
things have been defined about original sin in the church: (1) That it is. (2)
Whence it is, namely through propagation from Adam. (3) What its effects
in us are. But what original

sin is and in what its peculiar nature consists is not certain by an

ecclesiastical definition.” And for this reason he harshly condemns the
Augsburg Confession because it wanted to offer a definition of original

sin. And he attempts to show one by one that all the statements of all about
a definition of original sin

are certainly and evidently false.

That the opinion of Augustine that original sin is desire ( concupiscentia) is
certainly wrong he proves from this, that sin cannot be without the Law, of
which it is the transgression. However, infants cannot

be obligated to the Law because they lack the use of reason. Also, what we
simply cannot avoid, what is

necessarily and inevitably in us, and is in us not from ourselves but from
another, that cannot be forbidden by the Law. Therefore he concludes that
original desire ( concupiscentia) cannot be properly and truly sin, either in
an infant or in an adult, either before or after Baptism, because it results
from the makeup and composition of the parts of the human body. Then he
tries to prove also that the lack of the

owed original righteousness is a part of us and does not have the nature of
sin, either in infants or in adults, because, so he says, we can point to no law
of God by which all are obligated to have that original righteousness which
had been given to Adam. And even if there were such a law, sin should be

charged only to him who through his own fault lost that original
righteousness.

3 Pighius finally explains his position this way, that neither the lack of
original righteousness nor concupiscence has the nature of sin, either in
infants or in adults, either before or after Baptism, for these inclinations are
not moral faults, but conditions of nature in us; that therefore original sin is
not a defect, not some moral fault, not some depravity, not a corrupt
condition, not a depraved quality inhering in our substance, which is
without any defect and corruption, but that original sin is only this, that the
actual transgression of Adam, only insofar as guilt and punishment are
concerned, has been

transmitted and propagated to the descendants, without any defect and

corruption inherent in their substance, and that the guilt now is that on
account of the sin of Adam we have been exiled from the

kingdom of heaven, made subject to the reign of death and liable to eternal
damnation and overwhelmed
by all the ills of human nature, as from slaves, who through their own fault
have lost their liberty, there are born slaves, not through their own fault but
through that of their parents, and as the son of a harlot bears the disgrace of
his mother without any fault inherent in himself. This opinion of Pighius the
bishop Ambrosius Catharinus both approves and defends. For he sees that
in this way the entire papalist

doctrine of concupiscence which remains after Baptism, of free will, of

righteousness, merit, and the perfection of good works, etc., can most easily
be defended and supported. And I, indeed, when I first

read the decree of the Council of Trent concerning original sin, thought that
in it this profane opinion of Pighius and Catharinus, which is directly
opposed to the Scripture, was disapproved and condemned, without
mentioning the names of the authors for the sake of their honor. For that the
words of the decree

can be so understood is clear.

4 However, Andrada, the intimate of the council, betrays to us what the

deliberations were when this decree was considered, namely, that it was
intentionally made so intricate, that nothing either in the Scholastics or in
other papalist writers, no matter how profane and false, should be
disapproved or condemned, but that there might be the utmost freedom to
hold whatever opinion one pleased about original sin on the question what
it is and in what way it is sin in us, so long as he believes: (1) That it is; (2)
whence it is propagated; (3) what are its effects. But you say: “The decree
of the council does not expressly speak thus.” I say so too. But this one
example can sufficiently show how deceitfully many

things have been worded in these decrees. And we owe Andrada thanks that
he betrays and divulges these things so freely out of the intimate
deliberations of the council, which hardly anyone of our men

would have dared to suspect.

5 Therefore, let it be known to the whole Christian world for a perpetual

memory of the matter that the profane statement of Pighius (lest I say
something harsher) has neither been disapproved nor condemned in the
Tridentine decree but, together with other profane discussions of the
Scholastics about original sin, has been left under the liberty of thinking
what one will. Therefore it has not been the intention of the Tridentine
fathers to correct even the most glaring blemishes in their writers according

to the norm of Scripture; but they sought by a cunning device so to wrap in

silence those things which

they do not dare to defend openly that the opinions may be left free. Nor
can the Tridentine fathers complain that we slanderously invent this of them
to cause ill-will, for it was through Andrada, who knew the secrets of the
council, that these mysteries became known to the public. And now I am
not sorry that I gave Andrada cause to write, for otherwise none of our men
would readily have caught this

fraud under the deceitful wrappings of words in the Tridentine decree. And
yet it is very important that

the church should know what arguments were pursued, what deliberations
held in the Council of Trent

about opinions of this kind.

6 And Andrada himself in this place freely uses the liberty granted by the
council. For when he is about to state his opinion about original sin, he
prefaces it as follows: “That man ought not to appear to have perpetuated a
great crime who in a free matter also thinks freely.” But I will report briefly
the opinion of Andrada that the reader may perceive the fruit of the Council
of Trent and may see what kind

of correction of doctrine they sought by means of their decrees.

He seems to incline in his argumentation to the opinion of the Scholastics,

who think that human nature was so put together even in its innocent state
that because it is composed of diverse parts in its
makeup which do not agree in the least among themselves, it is pursued by
urges and, as it were, itches,

that is, by such impulses and passions that the flesh, since it lusts after what
is agreeable and pleasant to it, contends against the spirit and is averse to
the rule of reason; but that to these purely or merely natural things there had
been superadded the original righteousness as a supernatural gift which was
to

suppress the lewdness and wantonness of the flesh, restrain all wicked
impulses of the mind, and hold all parts of both mind and body in their
proper function; but that now, because we are despoiled of original
righteousness, the flesh is carried away by fierce passions, like a horse
without a bridle, and that so concupiscence is not in itself sin but, because it
is no longer restrained and suppressed by original righteousness, it
thereupon becomes sin, so that it is really the removal and lack of original
righteousness which actually has from original sin the nature of sin, or
rather, it is itself the form of original sin, from which also concupiscence
itself has the nature of sin.

When therefore the spirit of renewal is given in regeneration in order that

the spirit may fight against

the flesh, then concupiscence is not in itself any longer sin, as the condition
of its nature is now restrained and suppressed. But because there can be no
sin without transgression of the Law, Andrada

asks, with what law the loss of original righteousness conflicts. And he
replies that no law has been expressly revealed by God concerning this
matter but that this lack conflicts with the general intention

of the law of nature, by which everyone is obligated to care for the

soundness and the preservation of

nature.

But now, because Andrada argues that only that is sin which is an act
against the law of God, which is
committed knowingly and willingly, the difficult question arises: Since the
original righteousness was lost through the fault of Adam alone, knowingly
and willingly, how can that lack in us have the nature

of sin? He uses the subtle reply which comes from Augustine: “As the
nature of all men, so also the wills of all were originally in Adam, and in
this way also original sin has the nature of the voluntary in us.” But because
in this way the least amount of the voluntary is found in original sin (for it
was committed not by the will of our own person but by that of another,
namely of Adam, or of our common

origin), therefore, he says, original sin is rightly judged by papalist

theologians to be the least of all sins; and that, when the fathers call it the
greatest sin, this must be understood to mean that it is diffused more widely
than others and spread through all men.

It is therefore the opinion of Andrada that concupiscence, such as it is in

this corruption of nature, so

it was also in uncorrupted nature, where, however, it was restrained and

suppressed by the original righteousness; that therefore it is not in itself sin,
if only it is bridled, which is done in the regenerate; but that the loss of the
original righteousness in Adam does not conflict with any law of God but
only

with the intention of the general law of nature, by which the preservation of
nature is commanded to everyone, but that in us the lack of original
righteousness has only so much of the nature of sin as it has of the
voluntary; but because it has only a very small measure of the voluntary,
that therefore original

sin is the least of all sins.

7 This speculation of Andrada about original sin I have reviewed in order

that the reader may observe what kind of correction of doctrine may be
hoped for from the Council of Trent. For since the sum of
the doctrine consists in the knowledge of our corruption and of the
reparation through Christ, the reader

knows how horribly and wickedly the entire heavenly doctrine, which has
been divinely revealed to us,

is weakened to its very foundations, obscured, and corrupted by these

philosophical speculations about

original sin. For to the extent that sin is minimized, to that extent there is
detraction from the benefaction of Christ.

And indeed, the fathers of the council were not a little ashamed to set forth
the ugliness of this dogma

so nakedly in the midst of so great a light of truth, and yet they were not
willing to reject it; therefore they enveloped this decree in wrappers of
words which are mere generalities. But Andrada, the advocate

and interpreter of the council, clearly and in many words, too, explains what
mysteries are hidden under

these wrappings. Therefore, according to the interpretation of Andrada, that

man will not sin against the

mind of the council who contrives an even more profane opinion about the
definition of original sin. For

given this axiom, that original sin in us has no more of the nature of sin than
it has of the nature of the voluntary, Franciscus de Mayro will soon add:
“But original sin has been voluntary in only one

particular will, namely, that of Adam, but universally, that is, in us, it is
altogether involuntary. Hence it will not have the nature of sin at all.”

It is not necessary to bring similar conclusions from other writers. For

Andrada himself explains in a
not obscure manner what he learned at the Council of Trent about original
sin. For together with the theologians from Cologne he condemns
Monhemius, who had said that the inclination to sin and the lust

which we have put on together with our nature is original sin and that the
corruption of our nature contracted through original sin is so great that
nothing can be brought forth or effected by such a nature which is not
perverse and corrupted. This statement Andrada condemns, and he sets
down the following

as his own: “Although we cannot deny that human nature is exceedingly

corrupted, nevertheless, this corruption must not be magnified so greatly
that we acknowledge in it nothing godly, nothing good, nothing undented.”

The opinion of the Council of Trent, therefore, where Andrada wrote these
things at the exhortation

and inspiration of the fathers, will be this: In corrupt human nature there
remains, without the renewal

of the Spirit, still some good, not only with respect to external discipline but
also so far as spiritual things are concerned. For he adds that there remains
something godly and something uncontaminated.

And true godliness certainly belongs to divine, or spiritual, things, of which

Andrada asserts that some

seedbeds remain in this corrupt nature before renewal by the Holy Spirit.

8 Scholastic writers, indeed, at one time freely debated such things, but
now, in so great a light of truth, I had certainly thought that no one would
be so impudent that he would not be ashamed of things

which are so impious. And I see that the Council of Trent was at least
restrained somewhat by a sense of

shame, because it speaks in such a way in its decree that it could be

understood in a right sense. But what their understanding was which they
preferred to hide rather than to explain clearly Andrada, hiding nothing,
proclaims after the council in the theater of the whole world with a
resounding voice:

that so, in this decree, the fathers of the council in session and in public,
published one thing and at leisure, and at home whispered together another
thing about original sin. But Andrada, perhaps imprudently, betrays these
secrets. However that may be, it is profitable that the church should know
from the interpretation of those who were present at the council what fraud
and what crafty devices the

architects of this decree about original sin used.

9 But lest Andrada rush forward and accuse me of Manichaeism, with

which the Pelagians also burdened Augustine, we plainly say, that although
nature is not only in some part, but in all parts and

powers, corrupted, nevertheless, one must distinguish between nature itself,

which is in itself good and

from God, and the defect by which nature is corrupted through the sin of
Adam. As Augustine says in

De natura et gratia, ch. 1: “All good things which nature has in its
formation, life, senses, mind, etc., it has from the most high God, its
Creator, but the imperfection, which darkens and weakens those natural

good things, has been contracted from original sin.” 61

10 But I had almost forgotten the question which is really before us. Since
all discussions of whatever kind about the definition of original sin have
been left in the Council of Trent under the free license of holding whatever
opinion one will, what has been done there to the doctrine of the Augsburg
Confession, which drew up a description of original sin from the testimony
of Scripture? Do the papalists approve it? By no means! Do they allow it to
be free? Perish the thought! They expressly condemn it. This is certainly
strange, for they leave all other opinions completely free, no matter what
they are. But let the reader learn from this example, as the poet has said:
“Although in Rome all things

are permitted, it is not permitted to be pious.” So in the Council of Trent all

opinions of whatever kind

are left free, but only that opinion which is built up from the testimonies of
Scripture is not only not left free but is condemned and shouted down.

61 The reference should be to De natura et gratia, ch. 3.

SECTION II

The Teaching of the Scripture about Original Sin

1 It is not our purpose to provide an adequate and complete refutation: for

the basis for a true understanding of original sin has been shown and
explained in many and lengthy writings from the Word of God by our men.
One must learn and make pronouncements concerning the corruption, or
perversion, of nature, which came into the world through the sin of one man
and has spread to all men,

not from speculations of reason, nor from philosophical theories, but

altogether from the divinely revealed doctrine. In Ps. 90:8 Moses mentions

, “our secret sins,” which God sets in the light of

His countenance. For the ministry of the Word has been instituted for this
purpose, that by its proclamation that sin above all others may be exposed
and reproved which is far removed and hidden

from the sight and knowledge of the flesh, of reason, and of the world. But
my opponent Andrada, when
he is about to explain his view, what he thinks original sin is, brilliantly
follows the manner of the philosophical method, as if he were in the school
of Aristotle or Galen. But not even once does he attempt to establish and
prove with a single testimony of Scripture the things which he states about
original sin. So great a freedom of opinion has the Council of Trent
permitted that although it is held to be shameful for a lawyer to speak
without the law, it has become the height of piety, if I may use that

expression, for a theologian to carry on a discussion without testimonies of

Scripture.

2 This whole discussion must therefore be recalled to the boundaries and

limits of the Scripture. It is altogether false that human nature at its first
creation, when it was unimpaired, was so constituted that in mind, will,
heart, and the other powers there was such

(“disorder”) and rebellion as is also now

perceived to be still remaining in the regenerate. This also is false, that there
is no law given by God

with which the loss of the original righteousness conflicts and by which it is
reproved and condemned

together with the concupiscence which has taken its place. For man was
created in the image of God,

which consisted in conformity with the norm of righteousness in God,

which was revealed in the divine

law, namely, that in the entire mind, the whole heart, the complete will, in
all members of the body and

capacities of the soul the powers should be entirely whole and perfect for
the knowledge and love of God and thereafter of the neighbor, according to
the pronouncement of the divine law: “You shall love
the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all
your strength, and with all

your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”

And indeed, without any “disorder” of corruption and rebellion, namely,

without darkness in the mind, aversion in the will, stubbornness in the heart,
and corruption in the remaining powers, human nature was most pure and
most holy at the first creation according to the last commandment: “You
shall

not covet,” as Paul interprets it in Rom. 7:7–12. That this is what the image
of God in man was, the restitution of the image which is begun in this life
through the Holy Spirit and is completed in eternal

life shows sufficiently, Rom. 12; Eph. 4:17–32; Col. 3:5–25, etc.

This image or conformity to the norm of righteousness in God the divine

law requires of all men in

the first and the last commandment. Where it does not find this, it convicts
man of sin, which condemns

to eternal death unless remission is made on account of Christ the Mediator.

Now indeed, not only do

the sacred writings teach, but also experience shows, that in those born
from male seed there is a loss of divine light in the mind and that its place
has been taken by horrible darkness; that in the will there is a

turning away from God, and hostility against God; in the heart stubbornness
of disposition, and in all powers dreadful “disorder” and corruption, so far
as divine or spiritual things are concerned. About the

external discipline of reason in the unregenerate man we shall have

something to say later in the proper

place. This corruption of nature is not to be extenuated or painted over

according to the judgment of our
reason. But what it is, of what kind and how great it is, must be judged
according to the judgment of the

Holy Spirit, which He has revealed in the Word.

3 And because it is very important that we rightly and truly know the evil
hidden in the innermost hiding places of nature and in the most secret
recesses of the heart (for the greatness of the grace of Christ cannot be
understood unless our sicknesses are known), therefore the Scripture in very
many testimonies and also in various ways, sets before us for consideration
the most sad corruption of our nature. From among these we shall note
down a few that it may become manifest that it is neither uncertain nor free
what must be thought about original sin, as the papalists take license for
themselves.

4 For first of all the Scripture describes of what kind the excellency,
perfection, and integrity of human nature was before the Fall in order that it
may show from the contrast how those good things have been in part lost, in
part darkened and corrupted. According to Gen. 1:27, God created man
after

His image and likeness. In Eccl. 7:29 we read: “This alone I found, that
God made man upright, but they have sought out many devices.” But after
the Fall, we are told in Gen. 5:3 that Adam begot sons in

his own image and likeness. What the image of God in man was can in
some measure be understood

from its restitution, which is begun in the renewal. And this entire
description of the image of God and

its loss is delineated in the Decalog, if this is compared with our nature.
Therefore Paul says, Rom.

3:23: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” for the renewal is
called “glory” in 2 Cor.

3:18.
5 Secondly, Scripture describes what and of what kind our corrupt nature is
in itself, before its restoration and renewal. Thus in Rom. 5:19, it says: “By
one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” How it wants this
understood it explains in the same place. For it calls us wicked and enemies

of God before we are reconciled to Him through His Son. In Eph. 2:1–5 it
sets these two things over

against each other, what the believers have been made by grace and what
they were by nature. Yes, it

mentions actual sins, namely, walking in sins, following the prince of the
power of the air, living in the passions of the flesh, doing the will of their
thoughts; but it adds that these evils are brought about not by custom, not
by imitation, but “by nature,” it says, “we were children of wrath,” namely,
having the

passions of the flesh, the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts. And we, it
says, who have been born

from circumcised parents, were by nature children of wrath, even as the

others also, namely, those born

of Gentiles. The Scripture, however, distinguishes these two things, to

commit sin (1 John 2:4), or to walk in sins (Eph. 2:3), and to have sin (1
John 1:8), which is called indwelling sin (Rom. 7:17,20), sin

that is present (Rom. 7:21), sin which besets us on all sides and takes
possession of all powers in man

(Heb. 12:1), the ignorance that is in them. (Eph. 4:18)

6 Thirdly, when the restoration and restitution of man through the Spirit of
renewal is described, there is shown at the same time the contrast of the
corruption (Rom. 12; Eph. 4; Col. 3; etc.). But the restoration is begun in all
parts and powers of man in this life; this must grow, so that the body of sin
is finally destroyed (Rom. 7:24). From the contrast, therefore, let it be
considered, what kind of corruption that is which has entered into human
nature through the sin of Adam and has taken possession of all its

parts.

7 Fourthly, of what kind and how great the corruption of human nature
through sin is the Scripture

shows when it describes of what sort the remnants of that original sickness
are, also in the regenerate in this life (Rom. 7:23): “I see in my members
another law at war with the law of my mind and making me

captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.” Likewise (Rom.

7:14–15): “The law is spiritual;

but I am carnal, sold under sin. … I do not do what I want, but I do the very
thing I hate.” Also (Rom.

7:18): “I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.” Gal. 5:24 reads: “Those
who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and
desires.” In Col. 3:5 the regenerate are exhorted: “Put to

death therefore what is earthly in you, etc.”

8 Fifthly, when the Scripture shows how dreadful the corruption in man is
when he is either deserted by the Spirit of God or is without the Spirit, it
sets down a description of original sin itself. Thus in Gen.

6:3, when God had said: “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever,” there
follows directly: “The wickedness of man was great in the earth, and …
every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil.” And lest these
evils be thought to have been brought about by actions or habit, He says
that

the imagination of the human heart is evil from his youth, that is, by nature,
as Paul says, Eph. 2:3. And indeed, God says this of the human heart also
when the ungodly had been carried away by the Flood and only Noah lived
with his family on the earth, (Gen. 8:21). Thus Rom. 3:10–18, describing
man as

he is outside of Christ and without the Spirit, draws the description through
the individual parts of a human being: “All have turned aside; no one does
good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to
deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses

and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood, etc.” So in those who have
fallen the last state becomes worse than the first. (Luke 11:26, 2 Peter 2:20–
22)

9 Sixthly, the Scripture describes this evil both negatively and positively in
1 Cor. 2:14: “The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of
God, for they are folly to him”; in Rom. 7:18:

“I can will what is right, but I cannot do it”; in Rom. 8:7: “The mind that is
set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, indeed it
cannot”; in Rom. 7:23: “I see in my members another

law at war with the law of my mind, and making me captive to the law of
sin which dwells in my members.” In Eph. 2:3 Scripture calls the evil
“passions of the flesh,” “desires of the mind,” and in Gen.

6:5, “the evil imagination of his heart.”

10 Seventhly, in this description of the original evil the Scripture adds also
the tyranny of the devil. In Eph. 2:2 it says that Satan “is now at work in the
sons of disobedience.”

11 Eighthly, let it be observed also how the Scripture shows the subject of
the original corruption, for it places it in the mind. Eph. 5:8 reads: “Once
you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord”;

Eph. 4:18: “They are darkened in their understanding … because of the

ignorance that is in them”; 2
Cor. 3:5: “Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to claim anything as
coming from us”; Deut. 29:2–4:

“You have seen signs, … but the Lord has not given you a mind to
understand”; Rom. 1:21: “They became futile in their thinking”; 1 Cor.
2:14: “The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit.”

The Scripture also places this corruption in the will and heart. Gen. 6:5;
8:21 read: “The imagination

of the heart is evil”; Mark 7: 21–23: “Out of the heart of man come evil
thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit,
licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come
from within”; Eph. 2:3: “Following the desires of body and mind.”

And finally the seat of original corruption is placed in the entire man as he
is from his first birth, in

all of his members and parts. For the old man is commanded in Rom. 6:6
and Gal. 5:24 to be crucified

with his vices and lusts. Rom. 8:7 reads: “The mind that is set on the flesh
is hostile to God”; Rom.

7:18: “I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh”;
Rom. 6:6: “That the sinful body

might be destroyed.” In Ps. 51:5 David acknowledges sin and iniquity in the
very mass of the seed when

he was first conceived. Eph. 2:3 speaks of: “passions of the flesh” and
“desires of the mind.” In Rom.

3:13–18 the mouth, the lips, the throat, the feet, the eyes, etc., are
mentioned. And from the soul ( anima) itself, he is in 1 Cor. 2:14 called
animalis homo, the “natural” man, who does not receive the things which
are of the Spirit.
12 It is not to be feared, if we follow these statements of the Scripture, that
we may magnify the corruption of nature too much, which is the worry of
the men of Cologne and of Andrada, for this

corruption which inheres in us cannot be recognized and deplored

sufficiently, but there remains what the Psalm (19:12) says: “Who can
discern his errors? Clear Thou me from hidden faults”; and what Jeremiah
(17:9) proclaims: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately
corrupt; who can understand it?” We do not for this reason join ourselves to
the Manichaeans, whose blasphemies we condemn and execrate, but we
follow the Scripture.

13 These descriptions from the very words of the Scripture I have repeated
without explanation and

briefly only that I might show Andrada that it is false what he himself
together with many other papalists both thinks and teaches, namely, that the
Scripture only teaches that there is such a thing as original sin but that it
does not explain what, or of what kind, or how great it is. And I beg the
reader to institute a comparison, what thunderbolts of words those are when
the Scripture speaks of original sin,

and how lightly, how coldly the papalists philosophize about purely natural
things. The fathers, whose

statements Augustine has recorded in Contra Julianum, Bk. 1, certainly call

it a defect, a pollution, a defilement of nature, inborn wickedness, etc. But
because Andrada pretends that the Council of Trent,

because it did not define what original sin is, has left it free to everyone to
believe that original sin is what he wants it to be, we set against him the
voice of the Holy Spirit Himself, who shows in the Scripture by many
testimonies and in various ways, what, of what kind, and how great the
corruption of

the original human nature is. And when the mouth of the Lord speaks, all
flesh ought to be silent, heaven and earth ought to give ear. But Andrada
prefers to hold an opinion with the Council of Trent
rather than to believe with the Scripture.

SECTION III

The Arguments of the Opponent

1 Andrada wanted to show his keenness of intellect and his ability to speak
especially on this subject, as he set out to defend the definition of the
Jesuits, that nothing has the nature of sin unless it is done knowingly and
willingly. Now, Augustine’s discussions about the voluntary were not
unknown to me before, where he wants to defend the things which he has
said against the Manichaeans in a subtle and

farfetched manner, lest they should conflict with the doctrine of original sin.
But it is very clear that it is quite forced and farfetched that this definition
(“whatever is done knowingly and willingly”) also fits original sin, yes, also
in infants, on the plea that, as the nature of all men, so also the will of all
men was originally in Adam. Certainly it is clearer than the light of noon
that this is a definition of actual sin, as also the Scholastic writers confess.
And no matter into what shape Andrada transforms himself, he will

never persuade the prudent reader that that definition properly and aptly fits
original sin. How inappropriate it really is to play at defending improper
statements this discussion of Andrada assuredly

shows. For while he brilliantly declaims about the voluntary, he is finally

carried to the point where he

declares that original sin, because it has in us only a minimum of the

voluntary, is therefore also the smallest of all sins. But some masters of
sentences argue that original sin in us, especially in infants, properly has
nothing of the nature of the voluntary. According to Andrada’s definition,
therefore, it has

nothing at all of the nature of sin. How much simpler and surer is it to think
and say with the Scripture

that sin is

(“lawlessness”), because the rule and norm of righteousness is the will of

God, which

has been revealed to us in the divine law. Therefore, as that is righteous

which conforms to this norm, or rule, of righteousness, so sin is

, that is, whatever does not conform to the divine law, but

conflicts with it, whether it be a defect or a corruption in the rational nature

or an inclination, or an action conflicting with the law of God. David
certainly is not shrewdly looking for something of the nature of the
voluntary in original sin when he says: “Behold, I was brought forth in
iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” For the word

is used in Gen. 30 of conception, as the Septuagint

correctly rendered it,

. 62 When therefore the lump of the embryo, in the first ardor of

conception, first began to be warmed by the warmth of the womb, it had

already been contaminated by

sin, and this contamination, according to David’s confession, had the true
nature of sin, although the organs of the mind, the will, and the heart had
not yet been formed. I am not unaware how many things

could here be argued about the voluntary, about the origin of the soul, and
its connection with the body:
however, we believe with Ambrose not the subtleties of the dialecticians but
the simplicity of the fishermen.

Augustine rightly says about these disputations in De peccatomm mentis,

Bk. 3, ch. 4: “But although I am not able to refute their argumentation, I
nevertheless see that one must cling to those things which

are most clear in the Scriptures.” When Paul, in Rom. 7:15–23, complains
about the indwelling sin: “I

do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate”; and in Gal. 5:17:
“The desires of the Spirit are

against the flesh; … to prevent you from doing what you would,” Augustine
certainly acknowledges in

Retractationes, Bk. 1, ch. 13, that the statement suitable for civil
government, that nothing is sin unless it is done knowingly and willingly,
has no place here. Therefore, because the impropriety in this statement is in
itself clear, I shall answer nothing further to the lengthy declamation of
Andrada about

the Jesuitical definition of sin than what Augustine says, Contra Julianum,
Bk. 3, ch. 5: “In vain you think that there is no sin in infants because it
cannot exist without a will, of which there is nothing in them. For these
things are rightly said of everyone’s own sin, not of the contagion of
original sin, which nevertheless took its beginning from the evil will of the
first man, etc.”

2 Andrada also argues that the corruption of nature must not be amplified to
such an extent that we acknowledge nothing pious, nothing good, nothing
untainted in it. Job, however, says, ch. 14:4: “Who

can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one.” In Rom. 7:18
Paul says of himself after his

regeneration: “I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my
flesh.” And in Gen. 6:5, God

says of human nature deserted by the Spirit of God: “Every imagination of

the thoughts of his heart was

only evil continually.” And lest this statement be restricted to the ungodly
only who were before the deluge, it is repeated in ch. 8:21, when only the
just Noah with his family was living on the earth, and

He applies it to the entire human race that the imagination of the heart is
evil from youth, lest it be understood only of evil actions. For the word

is used of an infant and of a boy in Judg. 13:5; Is.

7:16; Ex. 2:6. And in this sense David speaks of “sins of youth.”

3 That this meaning has been corrupted in many ways in the Vulgate editon
is evident. For instead of what God says: “The imagination of the thoughts
of the heart,” we read incorrectly in the Latin edition:

“Sensus et cogitatio cordis,” so that they can dispute about the ability to
receive stimuli, and that the higher powers of reason can be exempted from
corruption. Where God says: “It is only evil,” this is corrupted: “The
thinking is intent on, or inclined to, evil.” Andrada, who knows Hebrew,
acknowledges
that that version does not correspond to the Hebrew words; nevertheless,
lest he incur the anathema of

the Tridentine Synod, he does not correct the version from the sources but
attempts to twist the sources

themselves to the corrupted version. The Hebrew particle

(“only”) he interprets, “truly evil is the

imagination of the human heart,” although both the root itself and the
examples show that it is an exclusive particle. And just as Pelagius long
ago, in Eph. 2:3: “We were by nature the children of wrath,” translated the
word

(“by nature”) with omnino and vere (“wholly and truly”), lest he be

compelled to admit original sin: so Andrada renders

with “truly,” lest he be pressed by the weight of

that pronouncement that every imagination of man’s heart is only evil, and
indeed, all the time, so that it is evil from childhood. These words are not
only very weighty, they are veritable thunderbolts against

those who minimize the corruption which originally inheres in this ruined
nature. But that Andrada may

escape those thunderbolts, he contends that the word

, “imagination,” means only the inclination, or

desire, to sin, which is called evil not per se but only because it may dispose
or incline to evil. But

signifies either to conceive something inwardly in the mind, to give it form,

and, as it were, to picture it, or to form or fashion something on the outside
according to the conceived idea. The Scripture sometimes calls it the
imagination of the thoughts (Gen. 6:5 and 1 Chron. 28:9). That thoughts
precede

desires is known. This means, therefore, that when the mind first conceives
and forms the thoughts, the

first movements themselves, the inclinations, or impulses, of the heart,

when man is without the Holy

Spirit, are already evil things, that is, contaminated and turned away from
God. For it does not say what

Andrada thinks, namely, that they incline toward evil, but that they are evil.
It is not speaking only of

the desires, for it speaks of the imagination of the thoughts. And let the
emphasis of the words be considered in the saying which is found in Deut.
31:16–21, where God speaks of the future apostasy of

the people and says: “I know the purposes which they are already forming
even now, before I have brought them into the land.” And in 1 Chron. 28:9,
there are enumerated in order the heart, the imagination, and the thoughts.
That from the thoughts there follow afterward lust and desires is known.

God, however, says that the imagination of the thoughts is only evil.
Furthermore, because

signifies

also “to form something with exceptional zeal and effort of the mind,” the
sense here can also be that

what the human soul, such as it is in this corruption of nature, without the
Holy Spirit, even with the greatest zeal and singular wisdom conceives and
forms in its thoughts, is only evil at all times, so that
“the imagination of the thoughts of the heart” is the same thing for Moses
as “the mind that is set on the flesh” is for Paul. For the thinking which has
been confirmed by deliberation is called

in Is. 26:3.

Therefore the statement of Moses does not weaken this (as Andrada and the
Jesuits think), but, sad to

say, it greatly enlarges the original corruption of the human heart. For what
Andrada says, that not the

heart itself but the imagination of the heart is accused, is absurd. For even
as from the good treasure of the heart good things proceed, so from the evil
treasure of the heart evil things are brought forth. For

Christ says, Luke 6:45: “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth
speaks.” And Jeremiah calls the

heart of man corrupt.

62 The reference is to Gen. 30:38, 39, 41.

Fourth Topic

CONCERNING THE REMNANTS OF ORIGINAL SIN AFTER

BAPTISM; OR,

CONCERNING EVIL DESIRE (CONCUPISCENCE) WHICH

REMAINS IN THE

BAPTIZED, OR REGENERATE, IN THIS LIFE

The Decree of the Fifth Session of the Council of Trent

If anyone denies that by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is
conferred through Baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted or even
asserts that the whole of that which has the true and essential nature of sin is
not taken away but that it is only marked out or not imputed, let him be
anathema! In the regenerate God hates nothing, because there is no
condemnation for those who are truly buried with Christ by Baptism into
death, because they do not walk after the flesh, but putting off the old man
and

putting on the new, who has been created after God, they have been made
innocent, spotless, pure, harmless, and the beloved of God, indeed, heirs of
God and coheirs with Christ, so that nothing at all

hinders them from entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and
understands that there remains in the baptized concupiscence, or a tinder,
which indeed, since it has been left in order that we

may combat it, cannot harm those who do not consent to it but manfully
resist it by the grace of Jesus

Christ; in fact, those who have fought lawfully are crowned. This
concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy synod
declares that the Catholic Church has never understood to be called

sin in the sense that it is truly and properly sin in the regenerate; but
because it is from sin and inclines to sin. But if anyone thinks otherwise, let
him be anathema!

Examination

This is one of the chief controversies, and it is being argued with great
contention by our opponents.

For on this depends the merit, perfection, righteousness, and supererogation

of good works before the

judgment of God. Therefore, not content with argumentations, they play

with various ambiguities in the

word sin. They also mix in slanders, as though we taught that original sin is
and remains in the regenerate after Baptism in clearly the same manner and
in altogether the same way as it is before Baptism in the unregenerate and
that it is the same sin, whether the regenerate resists it or whether he

obeys the desires of concupiscence.

Andrada loudly proclaims that we are blaspheming the grace of God, the
merit of Christ, Baptism and

faith, as if they were so weak that they could not suddenly in one moment
remove the entire original sin

in the baptized and root it out from human nature. However, once the
sophistry and the slanders have

been removed, the matter itself with which this question deals is entirely
clear from the Scripture.

Therefore we shall first of all establish from the Scripture what things are
certain and clear concerning

these matters.

SECTION I

The Point at Issue and the Bases

1 We have shown above that original sin in the unregenerate is both a lack
and concupiscence and that in addition it makes man subject to the wrath of
God and eternal death. But do we teach that it is and

remains altogether in the same way after Baptism in the regenerate as it is

before Baptism in the unregenerate? By no means; for we have learned
from Scripture that remission of all sins takes place in

Baptism through the death and resurrection of Christ and that this is not
superficial, not halved or partial, but full and perfect, so that there is no
condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. We learn also this from the
Scripture that Baptism is the washing of regeneration and renewing through
the Holy
Spirit (Titus 3:5). In place of the original defect, therefore, the Holy Spirit
works new gifts, spiritual powers and impulses in the regenerate. He also
begins to heal our nature, to mortify and crucify the old

man with his faults, evil lusts, and actions of the flesh (Rom. 6:6; 8:13; Gal.
5:24); to put off and destroy the body of sin (Col. 2:11 ff.; 6:6); to put off
the old man (Col. 3:9); to purge out the old leaven (1 Cor.

5:7); etc. These things we believe, teach, and confess. Here, therefore, there
is not yet the point of the controversy between us and our opponents.

2 The first question is: Whether, in view of the fact that in Baptism full and
perfect remission of all sins is given, also the renewal which is begun in
Baptism is so perfect and absolute in this life that in the baptized, or
regenerate, nothing at all remains in this life after Baptism of the original
evil or sickness.

Now the Scripture proclaims, experience teaches, and the sad complaints of
all the godly in this life testify that much of the old evil still inheres in the
flesh of the regenerate, as Rom. 7:15ff. says: “The good which I want, I do
not do, nor do I find a way to do it, etc.” And Scripture everywhere urges
the

regenerate to pray and to give diligence that the gifts of regeneration may
grow and be increased; but

what has need to grow and to be increased is not yet perfect and complete.

Augustine, in De peccatorum meritis, Bk. 2, ch. 7, diligently weighs the

words of Paul in 2 Cor. 4, for he says: “The old infirmity is not taken away
the moment a person is baptized, but the renewal begins

with the remission of all sins. For although total and full remission of sins is
made in Baptism, nevertheless, if there should occur at once also a total and
full transformation of the person into permanent newness, I do not say also
in the body, but if a perfect renewal could occur in Baptism in the
soul, which is the inner man, the apostle would not have said: ‘Although
our outer man is corrupted, nevertheless, the inner man is renewed from day
to day.’

“For, surely, he who is still being renewed from day to day, is not yet
wholly renewed. And to the extent that he is not renewed, to that extent he
is still in the old state, etc.” And there is no need of heaping up many
testimonies: for it is certain from the confession of all, as Lombard
explains, Bk. 2,

distinction 32, that the remnants of the original concupiscence, which in

Baptism began to be crucified,

mortified, cleansed away, and subdued, remain and inhere in the regenerate
in this life also after Baptism. (Rom. 6 and 7; Gal. 5; Col. 3; etc.)

It is therefore certain that, although the remission of sins which occurs in

Baptism is full and perfect,

nevertheless, the renewal which is there begun is not perfect and complete
in this life, that is, although the original evil has been remitted through
Baptism, it is nevertheless not suddenly entirely removed and totally rooted
out from the flesh of the regenerate, but some remnants of it, namely, a
failing and

concupiscence, remain and inhere in the flesh of the regenerate in this life.

3 With respect to these remnants of original sin, that is, the remnants,
defects, and the remaining concupiscence which after Baptism inhere in the
flesh also of the regenerate in this life, there is another very important
question. Lest we be led away from the point at issue by strange arguments,
the question

is not whether these remnants of original sin make the regenerate, who
through Baptism have been implanted and remain in Christ through faith,
hateful to God and condemn them, for there is now no condemnation for
them (Rom. 8:1). Neither is this the proper place to dispute about cases
where these
remnants of original sin rule in the mortal body in such a way that we do
not fight against the desires of concupiscence, but obey them (Rom. 6), for
then sin, when it is finished, brings forth death (James 1:15), and Rom. 8:13
reads: “For if you live according to the flesh, you will die.” But this is the
question, what this concupiscence which remains in the regenerate in this
life after their Baptism is, when it is not obeyed; what, I say, it is per se, in
itself, of itself, and by its nature, as the Jesuits say: Surely it does not make
hateful to God the believers who are in Christ and remain in Him, nor does
it

damn them.

Now, I ask whether it follows from this that this remnant of concupiscence
in the regenerate is a good

thing, pure, clean, holy, pleasing to God, and conforming to the divine law.
I do not think that either Andrada or the Jesuits will dare to assert this. For
in Rom. 7 Paul contradicts this with a loud voice, with many words, and
with a convincing argument. A beautiful argument is found also with
Augustine,

Contra Julianum, Bk. 6;63 for when he had said that concupiscence,
although its guilt has been removed, nevertheless remains in the baptized,
Julian understood this as if concupiscence itself were freed and absolved
from guilt through Baptism, so that after Baptism it is good and holy in the
regenerate. But Augustine replies: “If I meant this, I would certainly not say
that it is evil, but that it was evil. You say such things as must be said
against those who affirm that through Baptism the concupiscence of the
flesh has been sanctified and made faithful in those in whom it still remains
after

they have been regenerated, as if the good of sanctification had come in

order that now concupiscence

might be a holy daughter of God in the regenerate. We, however, say that it
is evil and that it nevertheless remains in the baptized.” Julian says:
“Nevertheless, its guilt has already been forgiven.”
Augustine replies: “Not the guilt by which concupiscence itself was guilty
(for it is not a person) but that by which it made man guilty originally has
been remitted and taken away; as when you hear that

the guilt of some manslayer was forgiven, you think not that the act of
homicide itself but the person has been absolved from guilt.”

This is a very clear statement to the effect that Baptism does not bring it
about that the original concupiscence, which was evil before Baptism, is
sanctified through remission in Baptism, so that it is

no longer an evil thing in the regenerate in whom it remains but becomes

and is a good thing, holy, clean, and pleasing to God. For it says that the
guilt is removed, not from the concupiscence itself, as if it were absolved so
that it is no more an evil thing, but from the baptized person, so that it
cannot condemn and make him guilty, even though it remains in him.
Therefore what Paul says of the concupiscence which dwells in himself
after his regeneration still stands: “What dwells in me, that is, in my flesh,
is not good.”

4 But let us proceed with our investigation. Because the remaining

concupiscence in the regenerate is not a good and holy thing, I ask: “Is it
therefore an adiaphoron, or an indifferent thing?” Paul replies in Rom. 7:21:
“When I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.” Augustine also says,
Contra Julianum, Bk. 6, ch. 6: “We do not say that concupiscence was evil
only before Baptism, but we say that also that

is evil which remains in the baptized.” It is therefore certain that the

concupiscence which remains in

the baptized after Baptism is not a good or indifferent thing but an evil
thing. But because there are some evils of punishment and other evils of
guilt, Paul explains at length what kind of evil concupiscence is which
remains in the regenerate. In Rom. 7:16ff. he says: “I agree that the Law is
good. … Nevertheless, I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not
want is what I do. Now if I do
what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells in me.
… I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and
making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in

my members.” Again he says: “With my flesh I serve the law of sin.” Thus
in Rom. 8:13; Gal. 5:24; Col. 3:5; and Eph. 4:22 Paul commands that this
evil be crucified, mortified, destroyed, put off. And in

Rom. 7:24 we find the sad complaint of Paul: “Wretched man that I am!
Who will deliver me from this

body of death?”

5 Since therefore the concupiscence which remains in the regenerate is such

an evil that it fights against the law of God, on account of which Paul,
although already reborn, complains that he is wretched and that his body is
for this reason a body of death; how is it, I say, that so great an evil does not
make the regenerate hateful to God? How can He keep from condemning
them? Paul replies: “I thank God through Jesus Christ, our Lord. … For the
law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me

free from the law of sin and death.” But how has He set me free from the
law of sin? Was it in this way,

that no law of sin is left in the regenerate? He certainly complains in ch.

7:23 that the law of sin is in his members and that with his flesh he serves
this law of sin. How, then, are the regenerate set free from the law of sin if it
still remains in their members? He replies: “There is therefore now no
condemnation for

those who are in Christ Jesus … who walk not according to the flesh but
according to the Spirit … who

by the Spirit … put to death the deeds of the body.” For he includes both the
remission, which is perfect, and the mortification of the flesh, which has
been begun and ought to grow daily.
6 Therefore the original concupiscence is forgiven, weakened, and
diminished in Baptism, not in such a way that it is suddenly taken away and
totally extinguished so that it is no longer there, for as long as the
regenerate live here, the law of sin is necessarily in their members. These
are all words of Augustine. Still this remaining concupiscence does not
prevent the reborn from pleasing God and from

being heirs of eternal life. But this does not happen because this
concupiscence in the regenerate has become either holy or indifferent, for
according to the confession of Paul it is evil; and, indeed, an evil which
wars against the law of the mind which the Holy Spirit has written into the
hearts of the regenerate.

But the grace of God is such that this great evil which dwells in the hearts
of the regenerate is for the

sake of Christ not imputed to them to condemnation. For “blessed are those
whose sins are covered”

(Rom. 4:7; Ps. 32:1). Therefore the regenerate should not imagine that the
remaining concupiscence in

their members is such that it could not per se make man hateful to God and
condemn him if God wanted

to enter into judgment with him and the umbrella of His grace and
forgiveness were removed; but they

should know how great this evil is and thank God, who on account of His
Son, the Mediator, does not

impute this evil to damnation. For concerning the concupiscence which

remains in the regenerate, Augustine says in Contra Julianum, Bk. 6, ch. 5:
“Furthermore, how could so great an evil, by the mere fact that it is present
in us, fail to hold in death and to drag into ultimate death, unless its bond
were loosed through that remission of all sins which takes place in
Baptism?”
7 These things are certainly so plain from the Scripture that if anyone dares
either to deny them or to call them into doubt, I do not see what he either
can or will believe in the Scripture. I have set forth the matter itself in a
simple way from the testimonies of Scripture, without mixing in a
disputation about

the term “sin,” so that with the removal of the quibbling about words the
matter itself might the more

evidently overcome our opponents.

63 Contra Julianum, Bk. 6, ch. 17.

SECTION II

The Council of Trent on Concupiscence

1 Now that the bases of the dispute have been established and confirmed,
let us come to the examination of the Tridentine decree. For because we
confess on both sides that concupiscence remains in the baptized, there are
those who think that this controversy is only a strife about words, namely
whether

the remaining concupiscence in the regenerate should be called sin or in

fact only a punishment and a

cause of sin. But the Tridentine decree itself — to say nothing about the rest
— shows that there is controversy about the things themselves, and about
very weighty ones too.

But let the reader observe with what cunning the words have been put in
that decree. For they do not

simply say that the regenerate please God, but they assert that God hates
nothing in the regenerate. Yet

they confess that concupiscence remains in the baptized. They think,

therefore, that God does not hate
the concupiscence which remains in the regenerate. But we ask whether the
venerable fathers want this

to be understood in this way, that the remaining evil of concupiscence is not

imputed to the regenerate

for the sake of Christ, in whom they have been implanted through Baptism?
But the decree says: “If anyone asserts that in Baptism that is not wholly
removed which has the true and peculiar nature of sin

but says that it is only not imputed, let him be anathema.” Therefore the
concupiscence which remains

in the baptized becomes a matter not in itself displeasing to God or a matter

which God can hate. For if

God hates nothing in the regenerate, then all things in the regenerate will
please God. But concupiscence remains in the regenerate; hence it will
please God, or certainly it will not displease Him, and not even if it is
imputed will it be something in itself worthy of the hatred of God and of
damnation.

For what Paul says in Rom. 8:1: “There is no condemnation, etc.,” this the
men of Trent do not want to

be so understood — and that under the threat of the anathema — that the
remaining concupiscence is

not imputed because of Christ, but that in itself, and, so to say, by its nature,
it is not worthy of damnation. For they judge that all of that which has the
true and proper nature of sin has been removed

in Baptism.

Also, they say that the regenerate have been made beloved of God. And
they assign as the reason, that they have been made innocent, spotless, pure,
and blameless. And lest anyone think that they understand this in this way,
that the remaining concupiscence is not imputed for the sake of Christ, they
condemn this opinion with the anathema. And they explain themselves in
this way, that the regenerate

are spotless, pure, and blameless because all of that which has the true and
proper nature of sin has been removed in Baptism.

The reader hears that I exaggerate nothing but only write down those things
which are clear and freely follow from the words of the decree. Let these
things be compared with the sad lament in which

Paul, though already reborn, in Rom. 7 describes, accuses, and bewails the
evil of concupiscence that

dwells in him, and there will be no need for any other refutation. But the
papalists argue these things

with so much effort to support the principal pivots of the papal rule, namely,
that the regenerate can in

this life satisfy the law of God by perfect obedience; likewise, that the good
works of the regenerate can make satisfaction for sins, be set opposite the
wrath of God, stand in the judgment of God, and merit

eternal life, etc.

2 Therefore the contention concerning this question is not an idle strife

about words, but the controversy is about the most serious matters, which
must necessarily cause astonishment in the church.

First, that we may more correctly acknowledge our troubles so long as we

groan under the burden of this corrupt flesh, look at them more closely, and
sincerely groan and weep over them with Paul, lest we

fall into Pharisaical pride about a pure and spotless heart and falsely flatter
ourselves. Secondly, that there be given and left to the Son of God, the
Mediator, the glory due Him. For not even after Baptism

does He cease to be our Reconciler, our Righteousness, our Peace, but

always, as long as we live in this
flesh, as the true Mercy Seat covers and overshadows with His obedience
the body of death and the flesh in which no good thing dwells, in order that
the indwelling evil may for His sake not be imputed to

damnation. Thirdly, that the article of justification may retain its purity
without corruptions. For in this life, after their reconciliation, the believers
please God and have been accepted to eternal life, not because of their own
purity, as though no evil adhered to it any longer, but with a humble
confession

they acknowledge and lament that in their flesh no good thing dwells. But
in true faith they give thanks

to God through our Lord Jesus Christ, for whose sake there is no
condemnation for believers because

their sins are not imputed, but they are blessed because their sins are
covered. For faith does not receive the remission of sins once only in
Baptism, like some infused quality, so that it thinks nothing about it

later, but through the evil which still remains in the flesh the regenerate are
daily admonished that they are to strive to remain in Christ, in order that for
His sake this evil which dwells in the flesh may not be imputed, which, if
we were without Christ, could condemn us. Fourthly, it is necessary that
this doctrine

of the indwelling sin be retained pure, lest we patch on the Pharisaical

opinion of righteousness, perfection, and merit through our works; but that
we may be able rightly to understand why Christ says:

“When you have done all … say: We are unworthy servants”; and why Paul
says: “I am not aware of

anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted.” For on account of

the indwelling sin the works

of the regenerate are in this life neither perfect nor clean in every part.
These things I have recounted in order to show that this controversy is not
unimportant but that it is

necessary to contend against our opponents concerning this article.

SECTION III

Concerning the Word “Sin”

1 This matter will become still plainer if the sophisms about the ambiguity
of the term “sin” are removed. For because Augustine somewhere argues
that the concupiscence which remains in the

regenerate is not sin, our opponents triumph in all earnest and make out of
this a whitewash for their corruptions before the more inexperienced.
However, the explanation is clear if a statement on the ambiguity of the
word is added. For when Augustine denies that concupiscence in the
regenerate is sin,

he clearly explains in which meaning he takes the word sin. For he says in
Ad Bonifacium, Bk. 1, ch. 13:

“Those things are called sins, which are done, spoken, or thought
unlawfully according to the concupiscence of the flesh or in ignorance and
which, when they have been done, make men guilty if

they are not forgiven. In Ad Valerium, Bk. 1, ch. 24, he says: “For this is not
to have sin, not to be guilty of sin.” In Contra Julianum, Bk. 6, ch. 5, he
says: “You who think that if concupiscence were an evil, he who is baptized
would be without it, err greatly. For he is without all sin but not without all
evil, which is said more plainly thus: he is without all guilt of all evils, not
without all evils; for he is not without the evil of ignorance, which is so
great an evil that through it man does not perceive the things which

are of the Spirit of God, etc.” And in Contra Julianum, Bk. 2, he says: “The
concupiscence which remains in the regenerate after Baptism is no longer
called sin in the same way (namely as before Baptism), where it makes
guilty.” Therefore it is clear that Augustine understands it to be sin when
men

do not resist the lusts of the flesh through the Spirit but obey them, and this
sin draws down on those

who have been regenerated the guilt of the wrath of God and eternal death,
unless they are again converted.

And in this sense also James speaks, ch. 1:15: “Then desire, when it has
conceived, gives birth to sin,

and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.” This is the same thing
which Paul in Rom. 6:12 calls

“reigning sin” and in Rom. 8:13 either “mortal” or “damning sin” when he
says: “For if you live according to the flesh, you will die.”

And in this sense we not only grant this, but when we explain the difference
between mortal and venial sin, we faithfully and diligently instruct people
that the concupiscence which remains in the regenerate, when one so resists
it that its deeds are mortified by the Spirit, is not a mortal or reigning sin,
nor one that ravages the conscience. We teach also that it is not a sin which
condemns the believers, that is, one on account of which those are
condemned who are Christ Jesus. So far, therefore, as the

matter itself is concerned, we clearly think and teach the same thing which
Augustine teaches.

And if our adversaries were arguing only that the remaining concupiscence
in the regenerate, when it

is resisted through the Spirit, is not a ruling, mortal sin, or one that
condemns those who are in Christ

Jesus, there would be no controversy between us about this matter. For

people must by all means be taught what a difference there is when the
regenerate mortify the deeds of the flesh through the Spirit

and remain in Christ, and when they allow concupiscence to rule in such a
way that they obey it and do

it. This distinction is taught diligently in our churches. And throughout this
entire disputation Augustine pursues only this, that he may show this
distinction. But the papalists do not chiefly seek this, but simply contend
that there is nothing in the regenerate which God could hate, but that all
things in the

regenerate are pure, spotless, and harmless.

2 But Paul, in that same place, Rom. 6 and 7, where he expressly treats the
doctrine concerning the

difference between ruling and non- ruling, mortal and venial sin, ascribes to
the concupiscence which remains in the regenerate the name sin also when
it does not reign, and that not just once, in which case

that appellation could appear to have casually escaped him. No, he

impresses and repeats the name a number of times. For in Rom. 6 it is
called sin at least five times. In Rom. 7 it is called sin at least six times. In
Rom. 8 it is called sin three times. In Heb. 12:1, it is called the “sin which
clings so closely.”

In Ps. 32 it is called “the sin of the saints.”

But the papalists say expressly that the word sin must be understood not
truly and properly but figuratively and improperly in these passages.
Alphonsus, on Phil. 4, says that concupiscence in the regenerate is called
sin as Christ is called sin in 2 Cor. 5:21. The Council of Trent argues that it
is called sin by metonymy, both because it is from sin and because it
inclines to sin. But no one can be a better

and surer interpreter of the words of Paul than Paul himself, and indeed, in
this very place. For he does
not give only the bare appellation of sin to the remaining concupiscence,
but he describes in manifold

ways what he wants to have understood by the word sin.

For he says: (1) “In my flesh no good thing dwells”; (2) “When I want to do
right, evil lies close at

hand”; (3) he describes that evil negatively: “I can will what is right, but I
cannot do it”; (4) he describes its positive perversity: “I do the very thing I
hate … I see in my members another law at war with the

law of my mind,” that is, with the divine law which the Holy Spirit writes
into the hearts of the regenerate, “making me captive to the law of sin
which dwells in my members. … So then, I of myself

serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of
sin”; (5) he says that concupiscence conflicts with the precept “You shall
not covet” and makes a distinction between “to desire” and “to obey the
desire”; (6) he says that it is so great an evil that it must be crucified,
mortified, cleansed out, put off, and destroyed; (7) on account of this sin
Paul, though regenerate, exclaims:

“Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?”
Paul speaks plainly, with certainty, distinctly, and clearly. He calls
concupiscence sin, however, not a reigning sin by which the

lusts of the flesh are performed. For he says, “I of myself serve the law of
God with my mind.” “I do not

do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.” Nor does he understand it as
a damning sin. For there is

no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

But does he, as Alphonsus makes believe, improperly call concupiscence, a

thing in itself good, pure,
and holy, a sin as Christ is called sin? By no means, say the men of Trent,
but it is called sin either because it is a punishment or because it is a cause
of sin. And this ground, that it is a punishment of sin, is treated in Rom. 5;
that it is a cause of sin is explained in Rom. 6. In Rom. 7 we read: “Sin …
wrought

in me all kinds of covetousness” and: “It is no longer I that do it, but sin
which dwells within me.”

But you say: “If you concede these things because they are true, that
concupiscence in the regenerate

is both a punishment of sin and a cause of sin, then why do we quarrel?” I

reply: “This is the critical

point, that the papalists contend that the remaining concupiscence in the
regenerate is called sin by Paul not because it is sin in itself but for this
reason only, that it is either a punishment or a cause of sin.

Lombard says, Bk. 2, distinction 32, that concupiscence before Baptism is

both punishment and guilt but that after Baptism it is only a matter of
penalty. But Paul argues that the concupiscence which remains in the
regenerate is not only a punishment, nor only a cause of sin, but that it also
has this nature of sin, that it is not good but evil, and such an evil that it
negatively and positively wars against the law of God which the Holy Spirit
inscribes in the hearts of believers. And Paul acknowledges that

this evil is in itself worthy of eternal death, unless it is covered on account

of Christ and not imputed.

For he says: “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body
of death? Thanks be to God

through Jesus Christ our Lord! … There is therefore now no condemnation

for those, etc.” Therefore it

is clear that Paul calls the concupiscence which remains in the regenerate
after Baptism sin, not only because it is both a punishment and a cause of
sin but chiefly because it is an evil which wars against

the law of God, which, by the mere fact that it is in us, would drag us into
eternal death (as Augustine

says), unless it were not imputed on account of Christ.

3 The question still remains whether for this reason the remaining
concupiscence can properly and truly be called sin. The common people
and men in government understand that that properly is sin, when either the
desire is performed because man consents to it or when sin holds the sinners
entangled

by guilt. And according to this understanding Augustine denies that the

concupiscence which the regenerate resist through the Spirit is truly sin. But
Paul says of this secular way of judging, Rom. 7:7:

“I should not have recognized concupiscence to be sin if the Law had not
said, ‘You shall not covet.’”

And although, according to Augustine, there is a difference between

coveting and walking after the lusts, Paul had previously understood the
latter to be somehow sin; but that the former, namely coveting,

is properly and truly sin he says he had not known except from the law of
God. Paul therefore declares

from the Law and according to the law of God that concupiscence is sin.
But Augustine denies that it is

truly sin in the way in which the common people understand sin. Now I ask
which of the two speaks

properly, Augustine, according to the public usage, or Paul, according to the

pronouncement of the divine law. I judge that what is truly and properly sin
must be taken and learned from Paul, who declares it according to the
statement of the divine law, without regard for the popular usage of the
word sin which Augustine follows.
4 However, as I said before, there must first be agreement about the matters
themselves with the papalists, lest they should seek a handy escape by way
of the ambiguity of the word sin, namely, whether the concupiscence which
remains in the regenerate is either good or indifferent or evil, and such an
evil that it wars against the law of God and makes a person liable to eternal
damnation, unless it is not imputed for the sake of Christ. Once the matters
themselves are settled, it will then be easy to find a way in the matter of
words and terminology. For the matters do not serve, and must not be
accommodated to, words, but words must serve the matters. These are the
principles of the Scripture on

this question.

SECTION IV

The Understanding of Concupiscence on the Part of the Ancients

1 The Tridentine decree asserts that the Catholic Church has never
understood that concupiscence in the regenerate is truly and properly sin.
Therefore something must be said about what the most ancient fathers held
about the concupiscence which remains in the regenerate. And lest we go
too far afield, we

shall show from those testimonies of the ancients, which Augustine brought
together in Contra Julianum, Bk. 2, because they are very clear, what the
understanding of the ancient church was. Quoting Ambrose, Augustine
speaks of “our vices which resist the law of the mind through the law of sin;
their

guilt, indeed, has vanished in Baptism, but the infirmity has remained.”
Likewise Ambrose calls iniquity not what is blotted out in Baptism and
what has belonged to those sins which we have done;

these have all been remitted and now no longer are there. But that law of
sin, the guilt of which, even as it persists, has been remitted in the sacred
fountain, Ambrose called iniquity for this reason, that it is evil for the flesh
to lust against the spirit, even though righteousness is present in our
renewal. These things Augustine quotes from Ambrose. In the same place
Ambrose says that some pleasure is contrary

to the divine command and that Paul speaks of this when he says: “I see in
my members another law at

war with the law of my mind.” Therefore Ambrose gives and expresses our
understanding in the very

same words.

2 Hilary calls our bodies the “stuff” 64 of all vices, the evils which are in
us, the wickedness through the condition of our origin. And where Hilary
speaks expressly of the regenerate who resist the concupiscence, he says:
“Remember that our very bodies are the ‘stuff’ of all vices, through which
we,

polluted and filthy, preserve nothing clean, nothing innocent in us.” And
Cyprian, as quoted in Augustine, though strongly resisting the evil impulses
coming from his origin, says: “Let no one flatter

himself that he has a pure and spotless heart, so that, relying on his
innocence, he believes that medicine need not be applied to his wounds,
because it is written: ‘Who will boast that he has a pure heart? Or

who will boast that he is pure from sin?’ But if no one is able to be without
sin, then whoever says that

he is blameless is either proud or foolish, etc.” I implore the reader to

compare these words of Hilary

and Cyprian with the Tridentine decree, which asserts that in Baptism
whatever has the true and proper

nature of sin is removed in such a way that the regenerate are made
innocent, spotless, pure, and blameless. The fathers certainly clearly say the
opposite; and yet the men of Trent are not afraid to boast about the
consensus of the Catholic Church.
3 Augustine also quotes this statement of Hilary: “We cannot be clean in
this earthly and carrion habitation of the body unless through the ablution of
mercy from heaven, we attain a cleansing when a

more glorious nature is wrought in our earthly body after the change of the
resurrection.” Likewise, even the apostles themselves, although they had
already been cleansed and sanctified by the word of faith, were nevertheless
not without wickedness through the condition of the origin common to us.
This

the Lord taught when He said: “If you then, who are evil, etc.”

4 These testimonies of the ancients which Augustine has gathered are very
clear. Jerome, expounding Matt. 7, says that a preliminary passion consists
of the first impulses, when they begin to excite and to

incite, but that it is a real passion after the agreement of the will has been
added to these; and about the first impulses he says: “Although they have
guilt, they do not involve an offense.”

5 Augustine himself calls the remaining concupiscence an evil, and how he

wants to have this understood he declares through the antithesis. He says in
Contra Julianum, Bk. 6, ch. 6, that it is not good, not holy, but evil. And in
Bk. 5, ch. 4, he says: “Distinguish the evils which we bear in patience

from those evils which we restrain through continence,” that is, he affirms
that concupiscence is not

only an evil of punishment, but also an evil of guilt. In ch. 5 he calls that a
vice against which one must fight by means of virtue. Therefore a vice is
something that is opposed to virtue. In Contra Julianum, Bk. 2, he says:
“The law of sin warring against the law of the mind, which is also in the
members of so

great an apostle, is remitted in Baptism but not condoned.” In De

peccatorum meritis, Bk. 1, ch. 3, he says: “Through the Baptism of Christ
this is accomplished, that the sinful flesh is put off. But it is not put off in
such a way that there is no inborn concupiscence in the flesh but in such a
way that that does

not hurt a dead man which was in him while he lived. For this is not given
suddenly in Baptism, except

perhaps by an unspeakable miracle, that the law of sin which wars against
the law of the mind is wholly

extinguished and is no more. In In Evangelium Johannis tractatus, 41,

Augustine calls the remaining concupiscence “the apathy that struggles
against our salvation.” Elsewhere he calls it “the infirmity which collapses
before the law of God.”

But chiefly the statement of Augustine which is found in Contra Julianum,

Bk. 5, ch. 3, must be observed. For because Augustine had previously
argued that the concupiscence in the regenerate is not

truly sin but the punishment of sin, Julian seized upon this and said: “This
disobedience of the flesh is

therefore not to be censured but rather to be praised, if it is a punishment of

sin.” But note how Augustine puts down this objection of Julian which he
had built up out of his words. He says that some

things are at the same time sins and punishments of sins. And he makes this
clear by this example: “Just

as the blindness of the heart by which one does not believe in God is both a
sin and a punishment of sin,

by which the proud heart is punished with deserved reproach, and also a
cause of sin, when something

wicked is committed through the error of the blind heart.”

And he says that it is the same way with the concupiscence of the flesh. Let
us also weigh the words
of Augustine; he shows clearly that he is not speaking of the concupiscence
in the regenerate before Baptism nor of the concupiscence in the regenerate
when it rules so that its desires are obeyed. For he

says, “The concupiscence of the flesh against which the good spirit lusts.”
But what is that? He says: “It is a punishment of sin, because it pays the
disobedient according to his merits. It is also a cause of sin through the fault
of the consenting one or through contagion from birth.”

Up to this point also the Tridentine decree agrees. But is it only both
punishment and cause of sin, as

the men of Trent contend? As also Lombard says, that before Baptism it is
both sin and the punishment

of sin; but after Baptism it has only the nature of a penalty in the regenerate.
But Augustine clearly says that the concupiscence of the flesh against
which the good Spirit lusts is not only a punishment and cause of sin, but he
adds besides a third, namely, that it is also sin; even as there are many
things which are at one and the same time both sins and punishments of
sins. He makes clear also wherein it has the

nature of sin; because, says he, there is in it disobedience against the rule of
the mind.

This is a very clear retraction, or explanation, of that which he had earlier

said rather improperly, namely, that the remaining concupiscence is not sin,
but a punishment and a cause of sin. For when Julian fashioned the
objection out of the statements of Augustine that concupiscence is not to be
criticized but rather to be praised if it is not sin but a punishment of sin,
Augustine acknowledges and

confesses that what he had said often previously, namely, that

concupiscence in the regenerate is only a

punishment and cause of sin, is not sufficient; but he adds a third, namely,
that it is also sin. And he adds the reason, namely, that there is in it
disobedience against the rule of the mind, in which the good
Spirit lusts against the flesh. Therefore let the reader consider with what
sincerity the papalists narrow down the statements of Augustine against his
own plain declaration, as if the concupiscence in believers

were not sin but only either a punishment or a cause of sin.

6 But it is worthwhile to remind the reader how deceitfully they endeavor to

escape this very clear explanation of Augustine. I will quote several
distortions in order that this statement of Augustine may

be the more agreeable to the reader. At the colloquy at Worms, Eck first
said that Augustine is here speaking of the concupiscence in the
unregenerate. But when this was clearly refuted (for Augustine

speaks of concupiscence against which the good Spirit lusts), Eck said that
one must not take his stand on this passage, where Augustine is fighting
against an opponent. The theologians of Cologne, writing

against the book of the Reformation, endeavor to escape with these words:
“Augustine indeed confesses

that there is in the concupiscence in the regenerate disobedience to the rule

of the mind: however,” they

affirm, “he does not say that such disobedience in the baptized is sin,
because the mind has the upper

hand in them.”

But Augustine clearly says that the concupiscence in the regenerate has this
same nature of sin, because there is in it disobedience to the rule of the
mind. My friend Andrada invents this kind of gloss:

“Augustine calls concupiscence sin when the mind, agitated by onslaughts

of desires, tramples the divine law underfoot.” But this is clearly wrong. For
Augustine says that he is speaking of that concupiscence against which the
good Spirit lusts. And he clearly distinguishes the rebellion of one who
consents from the disobedience which is in concupiscence per se. The
meaning of Augustine is therefore that concupiscence in the regenerate, also
when there is no defection of one who consents, but

when the good Spirit lusts against it, is nevertheless sin, because there is in
it disobedience against the rule of the mind. Andrada’s disposition must
really be proud, that he thrusts his perversions on us as a

command against the clear words of Augustine; however, I see that he

became accustomed to such interpretation at the Council of Trent.

7 We approve that statement of Augustine because it has been taken from

Paul, Rom. 7:22–23, where

he calls concupiscence sin and adds the reason that it wars against the law
of the mind. It is also worth

observing that the evidence of the Pauline argumentation compelled

Augustine often to speak

differently about the remaining concupiscence than he is otherwise

accustomed to argue in the common

manner.

Thus in In Evangelium Johannis tractatus, 41, he quotes various meanings

of the word “sin.” For Christ is called sin; infants before Baptism have sin;
the unregenerate have sin, concerning which it is

written: “Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin.” But the regenerate,
he says, have been freed from

sin. But in such a way that they are wholly without the stain of sin? Hear
how he speaks: “They have

been set free from sin,” he says, “because there is no charge or complaint
against them. But this is liberty which has been begun but not yet made
perfect; it is not yet total, not yet pure liberty, because I see in my members
another law, etc.” Likewise he says: “Whatever sin we have committed has
already

been taken from us in Baptism. But does no infirmity remain, because all
our iniquity has been blotted

out? Certainly, if none had remained, we should live here without sin. If,
therefore, you serve the law of sin through the flesh, do what the apostle
says: ‘Let not sin therefore reign in our mortal body!’ He does not say: ‘Let
it not be,’ but, ‘Let it not reign!’ As long as you live, sin must be in your
members, only let the rule be taken from it, and let what it commands not
be done.” And in the same place, treating of the

distinction between ruling and nonruling sin, he says: “Therefore God does
not condemn some sins and

justify and praise others. He praises none but hates all, as a doctor hates
sickness and aims in his ministrations at driving out the sickness. So God
aims at this by His grace in us, that sin may be destroyed. But how is it
destroyed? It is diminished in the life of those who make progress; it is
destroyed in the life of those who have been made perfect. You hear that by
the grace of Baptism sin is,

indeed, diminished but not wholly destroyed in this life.”

This last statement of Augustine I have quoted here that the reader may
compare with it what the Council of Trent says: “God hates nothing in the
regenerate.” But Augustine says that God hates sin also in the regenerate;
but in the unregenerate He hates sin to such an extent that on its account He
hates and condemns the person. But in the regenerate He hates sin like a
physician, who does not hate a sick

man whose cure he undertakes but, indeed, loves the person of the sick but
hates the sickness, and so

does he hate it that he endeavors to expel it from the sick.

64 We use the term “stuff” to translate the Latin materia. The term in Latin
has somewhat the connotation of “cause, occasion, source.”

SECTION V

Arguments of the Papalists

1 Now that the true understanding has been confirmed on the basis of
Scripture, to which also the consensus of antiquity is added, it remains that
we say something about the arguments of the papalists.

The decree of Trent uses particularly this argument: “The baptized have
been made the beloved of God.

Therefore God does not hate anything in the regenerate, but they are
innocent, spotless, pure, harmless.

And consequently the concupiscence which remains in the regenerate does

not have the nature of sin.”

However, the answer is clear if what the Scripture teaches is considered,

that God loves the regenerate

not because their nature is in every part perfectly pure, unspotted, and
harmless but on account of the

Son, the Mediator, whom we have put on in Baptism. For what Cyprian and
Hilary, in harmony with Paul, think of the un-cleanness which inheres also
in the regenerate, has been shown above in their own

words.

The men of Trent cunningly turn this around: “Because God loves the
regenerate, therefore there is

nothing in them which He can hate, even though He should want to enter
into judgment with them, but

all things are pure and unspotted in the regenerate.”

However, the Scripture strongly denies this. For it teaches that many things
inhere in the regenerate

which God could hate and condemn, according to Rom. 7. But the cause of
the love of God toward us it

places outside of us in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8:38–39: “No one shall separate
us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” In this way
what Daniel says: “To Thee, O Lord, belongs righteousness, but to us
confusion of face,” and what Paul says, Rom. 8:1: “There is therefore now
no

condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” is to remain. The men of
Trent understand this to mean that there is in the regenerate nothing
damnable, or worthy of damnation, even though God should

enter into judgment with us. But Paul, Rom. 7, in a sad complaint describes
the stuff of death in his flesh with many words. But that he is not
condemned he does not ascribe to his purity, but he says: “I

thank God through Jesus Christ.” And he adds: “There is therefore now no
condemnation for those who

are in Christ Jesus,” that is, though nothing good dwells in the flesh of the
regenerate, but it is the body of death, nevertheless, because they are in
Christ Jesus, they are on His account not condemned.

2 The men of Trent adduce also what Paul says, Rom. 6:4: “We were buried
with Christ by Baptism

into death.” But was this done in such a way that the original evil was
suddenly and completely extinguished in the flesh of the regenerate in
Baptism? Paul certainly commands that the regenerate, after Baptism,
should crucify and mortify the old man. Therefore we are dead to sin
through Baptism,

because the guilt of sin has been removed, and the mortification has been
begun. And yet the men of
Trent interpret the death of sin as if the entire original evil had simply and
completely died and been buried, so that nothing more remains in the
regenerate to be mortified in this life.

This example also shows how reverently the Scripture is handled in the
Council of Trent. The Scripture teaches that in Baptism the old man is put
off and the new put on, but with respect to the renewal it exhorts the
regenerate that they should throughout their whole life lay aside or put off
the old man and put on the new (Eph. 4:22–24; Col. 3:9–10). It would
certainly not say this if in the baptized

either the renewal were perfect in this life or nothing were left of the old,
for then their nature would be entirely pure and unspotted.

But the fathers of Trent corrupt this as if this putting off and putting on were
suddenly wholly

accomplished and completed in Baptism. For their decree says: “The

baptized, putting off the old man and putting on the new, are spotless, pure,
and harmless.” However, they place at the beginning the solemn
protestation that they do not want this to be understood of imputation;
therefore they want it understood of inherent purity. And indeed, when they
are compelled to confess that the regenerate are

still engaged in putting off the old man and putting on the new, they
nevertheless declare that they are

already pure and spotless, and that not by imputation.

How much more correctly Augustine says, De peccatorum meritis, Bk. 2,

ch. 8: “If in the inner man a perfect newness were effected in Baptism, the
apostle would not say: ‘Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner
nature is being renewed every day.’ For surely, he who is still being
renewed

from day to day has not yet been entirely renewed. And to the extent to
which he has not yet been renewed, to that extent he is still in the old state,
etc.” Nothing, to be sure, hinders the baptized from entrance into heaven, as
the decree says. But this is because they have been implanted in Christ, who
is

our Righteousness. But the men of Trent understand this in this way, that if
the umbrella of grace were

removed and God would enter into judgment with us after our Baptism, He
could find nothing which

could hinder us from entering heaven. Therefore there are as many

perversions of Scripture in this decree as there are words.

3 This, however, is finally their formidable argument, that they say:

“Concupiscence cannot harm those who resist it manfully through the grace
of Christ; yes, he who has fought lawfully will be crowned. Therefore the
remaining concupiscence does not have the true and proper nature of sin.”
But

neither can the devil harm the salvation of those who in faith resist him (1
Peter 5:8–9). And he who has

lawfully fought against the devil will be crowned. I shall therefore reply
with the words of Augustine,

who says, Contra Julianum, Bk. 5, ch. 3: “In the same way you could also
absolve the evil angels from guilt. For you are very eloquent and fit to
speak a paneygric to Satan and his angels.” Concupiscence

will also not for this reason be good, that it is mortified and overcome
through the Spirit, as Augustine

rightly says, Contra Julianum, Bk. 6, ch. 8: “For it is certainly iniquity,

when in one and the same man either the higher powers serve the lower
ones shamefully or the lower shamefully resists the higher, although they
are not permitted to conquer.”

4 These, then, are the arguments which the fathers of Trent have included in
their written decree. But beside these without doubt other things also were
privately pursued among them, of which the liberality

of Andrada has given us an abundance. But he takes what all acknowledge,

that there are two things in

sin: the guilt by which it binds a person, and the turpitude, the stain, the
iniquity, or wickedness which inheres in sin itself, so that it is in itself
something displeasing to God. When the men of Trent therefore say that the
remnants of concupiscence in the regenerate do not possess the true and
proper nature of sin, Andrada says that this is the meaning, that not only is
the guilt removed but from the remaining concupiscence itself there is
removed the stain, the turpitude, the inquity, or wickedness, so that God
cannot hate it in the regenerate.

Let the reader note this well. But Andrada had previously laid his
foundations, namely, that concupiscence in itself, also before Baptism, does
not properly have the nature of sin, unless the original righteousness by
which it is restrained is lacking. Since, therefore, the righteousness which
restrains concupiscence is restored in Baptism, therefore concupiscence is
not in itself sin.

This he does not propose at once, but first he looks for some excuses from
Scripture. Therefore Andrada declaims rhetorically and at great length:
“Are the grace of God, the merits of Christ, and the

efficacy of the sacraments so weak that it is impossible in Baptism suddenly

and wholly to remove whatever has the nature of sin? Are the powers of sin
so great, that they can be vanquished in Baptism

by the power and strength neither of the grace of God, nor of the merit of
Christ, nor of Baptism? Has,

therefore, the wickedness of Adam hurt more than the merit of Christ can
benefit the regenerate? etc.”

I reply briefly and simply: “You cannot draw a firm conclusion about what
is from what is possible.
Without doubt the grace of God could, on account of the merit of Christ,
through the efficacy of Baptism, suddenly remove from the baptized the
entire original evil, also the tinder of concupiscence itself and the death of
the body, concerning which the papalists concede that they remain in the
regenerate. What if in this place I should borrow exclamations from
Andrada? “Is then the blood of Christ so weak that it cannot remove these
evils suddenly and wholly in Baptism?” What if I should exclaim that
Andrada is a blasphemer against the power and efficacy of the death and
blood of Christ,

because he admits that these evils, namely, the tinder and the death of the
body, etc., are neither suddenly nor wholly removed in this life through
Baptism? No matter what he will reply, he must acknowledge that the nerve
has been cut of those arguments about possibility, which he decked out so

splendidly with his grandiloquence. For the simple and true rule is: “What
the grace of God, the merit of

Christ, and the efficacy of Baptism work in the regenerate, how and in what
order, must be established

from the Word of God, not from argumentation about what is possible.

The Word of God, however, teaches, as was proved above by testimonies of

Scripture, that the grace

of God bestows full and perfect forgiveness of all sins in Baptism, that the
mortification and renewal is

only begun in this life and is daily increased in the regenerate, but that the
completion and perfection

finally will occur in the next life.

There is, however, no doubt that the grace of God can perfect and complete
this suddenly and in one
moment. But the Scripture testifies that God, according to His own plan,
does not do this in this life, yet this does not in the least detract from the
efficacy of the grace of God and of the merit of Christ. For the power of
God is made perfect in weakness. And although we know no reason why
God does not want to

make the benefit of the renewal which has been begun suddenly perfect and
complete in this life but wills in great infirmity to preserve, increase, and
finally lead it to perfection, which will happen in the next life; nevertheless,
it ought to suffice us that the Scripture testifies that God works in the
regenerate in this manner and order. And yet it is certain that He can
complete this in one moment. That He does

not do it is His good will; that He has certain reasons for this, there is no
doubt. Therefore the rhetorical outbursts of Andrada about possibility fall of
themselves and disappear when this simple answer is raised against them.

I shall add a clear passage of Augustine, who in Contra Julianum, Bk. 4, ch.
2, plainly gives the very same solution. He says: “It is as if we denied that
the assistance of God is so powerful that He could

cause us to have no evil of concupiscence today against which we could

battle invincibly. But that this

does not happen you also do not deny; but as to why it does not happen,
who has known the mind of the

Lord? Nevertheless, what I know is not too little, when I know that
whatever that reason may be, it is

neither an iniquity on the part of the just God nor an infirmity in His
omnipotence. There is therefore

something in His hidden, deep counsel, why there is in us something

against which our mind must struggle so long as we live in this mortal flesh.
This is also why we say: ‘Forgive us our debts.’”
A little farther on he says: “It has been done by reason of this our infirmity,
that we should not live

proudly and that we may live under the daily remission of sins. But whether
this is the reason or another

which is far more deeply hidden from me, nevertheless, I cannot doubt, no
matter how much we may

progress under the burden of this corruptible body, that if we say that we
have no sin, we deceive ourselves, etc. For this reason our holy church also
in such of its members where it has no spot of reproach and wrinkle of
deceit, even though your pride contradicts, does not cease to say to God:

‘Forgive us our debts.’”

5 However, Andrada also fights with testimonies of Scripture; we shall see

how he uses them. “In 1

Cor. 6:11 we read: ‘And such were some of you. But you were washed, you
were sanctified, you were

justified.’ Therefore nothing contaminated remains in the regenerate.” I

reply: “So far as the remission

of sins and the imputation of righteousness is concerned, the baptized,

because they have put on Christ,

who is our Righteousness, have in Him the most perfect purity. But the
purity of the renewal, or

sanctification,65 has only been begun, and it must daily grow until it is
made perfect, which will happen in the next life.”

This is the explanation of Paul himself. For those whom he calls washed
and sanctified in 1 Cor. 6:11,

he later addresses thus (2 Cor. 7:7): “Let us cleanse ourselves from every
defilement of body and spirit
and make holiness perfect.” Therefore the baptized are washed and cleansed
in such a way that this exhortation is necessary for them: “Let us cleanse
ourselves from every defilement.” But you say:

“Perhaps Paul understands the defilement with filth which they had
contracted after Baptism through actual sins, through communication with
idols.” I do not deny that Paul includes also this, but that also

in the regenerate themselves there inheres what must daily be purged Paul
shows in 1 Cor. 5:6–8, where

he says that the regenerate are unleavened and yet that the old leaven must
be purged. This cannot be

understood as if the remaining Corinthians were without a trace of the old,

and that they only needed to

cast out the incestuous person. For in Eph. 4:22–24 and Col. 3:9, 10 he
addresses the regenerate themselves when he commands them to lay aside
and put off the old man.

Therefore there remains in the regenerate themselves the old nature which
must daily be cleansed.

Thus in John 15:2 Christ says of the branch which is already bearing fruit:
“My Father prunes it that it

may bear more fruit.” And the epistle of Jude, v. 23, speaks of “the garment
spotted by the flesh.” But

that which is clean and pure cannot pollute another. Therefore the baptized
have been cleansed, and yet

they have need of cleansing daily. Christ says to the apostles: “You are
already clean on account of My

Word, and yet My Father daily cleanses you.” Thus they have been
sanctified in Baptism, but Paul exhorts that they should perfect their
sanctification. Therefore sanctification is begun, not perfected, in this life.
And Augustine plainly explains this saying of Paul in the same manner in
Contra Julianum, Bk. 6, ch. 5, where Paul says: “And such were some of
you, but you were washed, you were sanctified.”

He said they had been changed for the better, not that they should be
without concupiscence, which cannot happen in this life, but that they
should not obey it, which can be done in a good life, and that

they should know that they had been freed from that bond by which they
had been beholden to it.

6 (Andrada also quotes) what is written Heb. 1:3: “When He had made
purification for sins, He sat

down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” Here Andrada presses the
past tense, that the purging of

sins has already been made. However, if he is pleased to press the aorist
tense in this way, we shall say

that our sins were purged before we were baptized, yes, before we were
born. For he says this was done

before Christ ascended into heaven. And this is true, indeed, of the sacrifice
of Christ, by which He made satisfaction for all sins on the cross.

However, our question is how and when the purging of sins occurs in us.
We say that it occurs first

through remission, through the removal of the guilt, or by nonimputation.

Thereafter it occurs through

mortification and renewal, which is begun in this life, grows and increases,
but will be completed finally in the next life. Thus 1 John 1:7–9 reads: “If
we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with God, and
the blood of His Son cleanses us from all sin.” And John adds: “If we say
we
have no sin, we deceive ourselves … but if we confess our sins, He is
faithful and just and will forgive

our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Now to unite the entire
meaning of John into one statement: No one can have communion with God
unless he previously has the cleansing from sins. But

even when they already have communion with God and walk in the light,
yet they are still being cleansed from sin. And having been so cleansed, we
daily confess our sins that He may cleanse us from

all iniquity. Therefore the cleansing from sin is continuous.

Thus Hilary, in Augustine, Contra Julianum, Bk. 2, says that “we cannot be
clean in this dwelling place of our earthly and mortal body unless we obtain
cleansing through washing by heavenly mercy,

once the more glorious nature of our earthly body has been brought about
after the change in the resurrection.” Augustine adds this explanation to
these words: “You see that Hilary does not deny our

cleansing in this life, and yet he hopes for human perfection, that is, for a
nature more perfectly cleansed

in the final resurrection.”

In the same place Hilary also explains how the purging of sin in the
regenerate takes place throughout

their life, through the strife of the passions struggling against us, namely, as
the divine mercy turns the wickedness of the devil to our cleansing. For
when the incentives which creep in through the infirmity

of the mind are repressed, we are cleansed from sin through the glory of this
victory.” And finally he

concludes: “Conscious, therefore, of the fact that these our bodies are the
stuff of all vices, through which, polluted and filthy, we preserve nothing
clean in us, nothing innocent, let us rejoice that we have an enemy with
whom we may fight in a war, as it were,” etc.

In De perfectione justitiae Augustine also describes the purity of the

regenerate in this life thus:

“Also the absurd statement is not made that he is without spot, not because
he is already perfect but because he blamelessly hurries toward that
perfection, being without damnable crimes and not

neglecting to cleanse even venial sins through alms. For after we have
entered upon this our way by which we strive for perfection, pure prayer
makes pure when we truthfully say: ‘Forgive us, as we also

forgive.’ Therefore while that which is not imputed is rebuked, our course
may be held without spot toward perfection, in which perfection, when we
have come to it, there will no longer be anything at all

which must be cleansed by forgiveness.”

These statements of the ancients I have recorded in order that the reader
may see that these are not

our own explanations, that the regenerate are clean in this life through
imputation and by way of a beginning. But Andrada urges that not only is
the baptized person cleansed but that the sins themselves

are purged in Baptism. And because there are two things in sin, the foulness
and the guilt of sin, Andrada thinks that not only the guilt but also the
foulness of the concupiscence which remains in the

regenerate is removed in Baptism. Therefore, what Augustine attributes to

Julian will happen:

concupiscence will be so sanctified through Baptism that it is now good,

just, and a holy daughter of God. So go ahead, Andrada!

Dare something worthy of exile and dungeon,

If you want to amount to something.

7 He comments on Titus 3:5–6: “‘He saved us by the washing of

regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit which He poured out upon us
richly.’ Therefore nothing of sin remains in those on whom

the Holy Spirit has been poured out richly.” I reply: “Paul does not say that
the Holy Spirit perfects and completes the renewal in that moment when a
person is baptized; but He is poured out in Baptism on

the regenerate in order that the inner man may be renewed from day to day,
according to 2 Cor. 4:16.”

“And as far as he is not renewed, so far he is still in the old condition,” says
Augustine. Therefore the

efficacy of Baptism stretches through the entire life of the regenerate and is
completed only in death, until this mortal puts on the immortal and the
corruptible puts on incorruption, according to 1 Cor.

15:54.

8 He comments on 2 Cor. 6:14: “‘What fellowship has light with darkness?

What partnership have righteousness and iniquity?’ Therefore nothing is
left of sin in the baptized.” I reply: “Paul presses the point that mortal sin
does not stand alongside the righteousness of faith, as we commonly speak.
But Andrada understands this as if there could not at the same time be in
one person the old nature and the

new, flesh and spirit, the law of the mind and the law of sin. Therefore he is
disputing with Paul, who is not afraid to affirm this clearly and to inculcate
it through frequent repetitions.”

9 He quotes Eph. 5:26–27: “He sanctified the church, cleansing it with the
washing of water by the

Word, that He might present it to Himself glorious, not having spot or

wrinkle.” This statement of Paul
the papalists always quote in such a way as if Paul had written: “Christ
cleansed the church and presents

it, namely, in this present life, at once after Baptism, without spot or
wrinkle,” although Paul says: “He

cleansed the church that He may present it without spot or wrinkle.” But
then he tells us when it will be

glorious. For “glorious” and “without spot and wrinkle” are joined together.
For it will be glorious, as

Paul says to the Colossians, ch. 3:4: “When Christ who is our life appears,
then you also will appear with Him in glory,” and in Rom. 5:2: “We rejoice
in our hope of sharing the glory of God.” Christ therefore now cleanses the
church with the washing of the water in the Word, washing away past sins

and driving away from it the power of the evil angels. Then perfecting its
purity, He makes it to run to

that glorious state without spot or wrinkle.

This is Augustine’s explanation of the perfection of righteousness. And in

Contra Julianum, Bk. 2, he quotes this statement of Hilary: “He taught that
even the apostles, although they had already been cleansed and sanctified
by the Word of faith, were nevertheless not without wickedness through the
condition of our common origin, when He said: ‘If you, then, who are evil
know how to give good gifts

to your children.’” It is worthwhile to consider that the Pelagians quoted the

statement of Paul in Eph.

5:26–27 against Augustine in clearly the same manner as the papalists quote
it now. For so he says in

De dono perseverantiae, ch. 5: “The Pelagians dare to say also this, that a
righteous person has no sin at all in this life and that in such persons it is
true already in the present time that the church has neither spot nor wrinkle;
as if that were not the bride of Christ which throughout the whole earth says
what it

has learned from Him: ‘Forgive us our debts.’”

And he says in Ad Bonifacium, Bk. 4, ch. 7: “The Pelagians say that

through Baptism men are perfectly renewed, and for this they adduce the
testimony of the apostle in Eph. 5. But if they say that

they have no sin, John answers them, they deceive themselves and the truth
is not in them. If, however,

they confess their sins, since they want to be members of the body of
Christ, how will that body, that is, the church, perfect already in this time,
as they themselves think, be without spot or wrinkle when its

members confess without lying that they have sins? Therefore both are true:
all sins are remitted in Baptism, and through the washing of water in the
Word the church is presented to Christ without spot or

wrinkle. Because, if it had not been baptized, it would be useless for it to

say: ‘Forgive us our debts,’

until it would be led through to glory, where it would more perfectly have
no spot and wrinkle.”

10 He comments thus on Heb. 9:28: “‘Christ, having been offered once to

take away the sins of many.’ But those sins of which even slight remnants
remain can in no way be said to be emptied out.

Therefore the regenerate have not even slight remnants of sin.” So says
Andrada. But let the reader consider first of all how Andrada misuses the
word exhaurio, which is found in the Vulgate edition; because the text has
the verb

, which means either “to offer,” or “to bear.” In 1 Peter 2:24 we

read: “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree.” And the text, Heb.
9:28, sets these two over

against each other: “He was once offered to bear the sins of many; but at
His second coming He will

appear without sin to salvation.” The full abolition of sin is therefore still in
the future.

11 If any other similar statements are quoted against us from Scripture, the
general explanation and solution consists in these three chief points. First,
as Paul says in Rom. 8:2: We have been set free from the law of sin and
death; for even though sin dwells in our flesh and we serve the law of sin
with our

flesh, nevertheless, there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ

Jesus. Secondly: We have died

to sin (Rom. 6), and our old man has been crucified with Christ, that the
body of sin might be destroyed,

that we might no longer serve sin.

Third: “When the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the
saying that is written … O

death, where is thy sting? The sting of death is sin” (1 Cor. 15:55–56). So in
general is the answer of

Augustine in Contra Julianum, Bk. 6, ch. 5: “To this perfection also which
is hoped for one comes through the same Baptism which is here received.”
And in Bk. 2: “It heals the one who has been defiled, from guilt at once,
from infirmity gradually.” And in In Evangelium Johannis tractatus: “After
the regeneration of Baptism let us pray the physician that we who have been
wounded may be brought

to the inn to be cured.” Clear is also the statement of Augustine in De

peccatorum mentis, Bk. 2, ch. 27,
which can be set against all objections. Treating the question in what way
the sin which has been remitted to a parent can hurt the son unless he is
born again, he replies: “Because the renewed parents

beget carnally, not from the first-fruits of the renewal but from the
remainders of the old nature.” And

he adds: “This we ought to consider and remember principally on account

of the questions which have

been raised about this matter, or which can still be raised: in Baptism only
the full and perfect remission of all sins takes place; the entire quality of the
person himself is not immediately changed, but the firstfruits of the Spirit in
those who progress well from day to day, as the newness increases, change
in them

what is carnally old until the whole is so renewed that also the infirmity of
the living body arrives at spiritual firmness and incorruption.” Thus
Augustine. But Andrada contends that not only is the guilt taken away but
that also whatever has the nature of sin in concupiscence is destroyed.
Renewed parents,

therefore, transmit to their children a concupiscence from which everything

that has the nature of sin has been rooted out. Let Andrada, with his usual
grandiloquence, reconcile this his opinion with Augustine.

12 If a baptized person dies at once, we say with Augustine, De peccatorum

mentis, Bk. 2, ch. 28: “If the departure from this life follows at once, there
will be nothing at all which may hold him guilty, for

all the things which were holding him have been taken away.”

13 So much about the statements which are usually quoted against us from
the Scriptures. For in what Andrada quotes from Jerome, that in Baptism
the old man has entirely perished, likewise, that Baptism
makes a new man altogether and that nothing remains of the old, he shows
what kind of torturers of the

fathers the papalists are. For although Paul everywhere loudly proclaims
that the old man, though crucified with Christ in Baptism, nevertheless
remains in the regenerate, so that in this life he must always be mortified,
laid aside, and put off (Rom. 8:13; Gal. 5:24; Eph. 4:22–24; Col. 3:9–10),
Andrada

inflicts a great insult on Jerome, as if he held, against Paul, that the old man
has wholly perished in Baptism, so that nothing at all of the old nature is
left in the regenerate in this life.

14 So far Andrada has, under any kind of pretext whatsoever from the
Scripture, paraded the remnants of concupiscence in disguise around in the
theater, hoping to deceive the eyes of the spectator

by some kind of show. Let us now hear further how, in the inner chambers
of the council, he learned to

philosophize about the concupiscence which remains in the regenerate. He

insists with many words on

the political axiom that nothing has the nature of sin unless it is voluntary.
But Paul says in Rom. 7:15:

“I do, not what I want, but what I hate,” and in Gal. 5:17: “So that you do
not do the things you want to

do.” Ergo: Concupiscence in the regenerate, when consent does not

accompany it, has not the nature of

sin at all.

15 But because the objection is raised that concupiscence is

(“lawlessness”) also in the

regenerate, because it disagrees with the norm of the Law and conflicts with
it, and because the Law is

the norm of righteousness in God, therefore whatever disagrees with that

norm and conflicts with it has

the nature of sin. All papalists feel the pressure of the weight of this
argument, therefore they seek various cracks that they may escape. The men
of Cologne, writing against the Book of the Reformation,

understand that if it is conceded that concupiscence is lawlessness, it

immediately follows that it has in itself the true nature of sin. Therefore
they seek to evade defeat by saying that the Law does not accuse

and censure concupiscence itself but only this, if concupiscence is carried

out. Pighius insists that it is absurd to say that concupiscence in the
unregenerate before Baptism has the true nature of sin, because

it disagrees with the law of God and conflicts with it, but to absolve the
concupiscence which remains in

the regenerate after Baptism, though it wars against the law of the mind,
from all guilt of sin and from

the nature of iniquity in such a way that it not only does not make the
baptized person guilty, but that

concupiscence itself no longer has anything of the nature of sin. This,

Pighius thinks, is very absurd. He himself therefore contends that
concupiscence also before Baptism is not lawlessness at all but a good,

holy, and righteous condition of nature.

But Andrada, together with the Jesuits, concedes that concupiscence in the
regenerate is lawlessness,

that is, that it disagrees with the law of God and conflicts with it, and yet he
very steadfastly contends that it has nothing at all of the nature of sin. But,
you ask, by what trick can he argue against the most evident principles?
Please listen! He scratches his brow and thunders with a proud voice that
not all lawlessness is sin, but that lawlessness is the genus for sin even as
living being is for man. As therefore a certain living being is rational,
another irrational, so perhaps a certain lawlessness will be evil, another
good; one righteous, another unrighteous; one wicked, another holy; one
displeasing to God, another pleasing; one will be sin, another a good work,
or at least indifferent.

But since the divine will is the certain and immovable norm both of virtue
and of vice, and this norm

has been revealed in the Law, wherefore Paul says: “By the Law is the
knowledge of sin,” likewise: “I

should not have known sin, if the Law had not said: ‘You shall not covet,’”
how, I ask, can Andrada weaken this firm axiom? I reply: He escapes it
only through this childish and feeble sophism: “The devils and wicked men
resist the law of God, and yet the devil is not sin, and the ungodly man is
not

called sin but a sinner. Hence not everything which wars against the law of
God is sin.”

A very weighty matter is in dispute, namely, how the law of God teaches
the knowledge of sin, which

is unknown to reason. But Andrada, as though playing with children about

such things, dashes off a piece of sophistry, laughs, but does not refute the
argument. Peccator and peccatum (“sinner” and “sin”) belong together, and
“sinner” is certainly not “sin” itself. It is, however, quite certain that without
sin there is no sinner, but that he both is and is called a sinner by reason of
sin, or on account of sin. Thus the ungodly man wars against the law of
God; but how? Does he do it by reason of his substance or by

reason of sin, by which the substance has been corrupted? However, it is

certain that no substance can

war against the law of God except through sin, or by reason of sin.
Therefore it is quite certain, firm,

and established that whatever departs from, and conflicts with, the norm of
righteousness in God, which

has been revealed in the Law, has the nature of sin.

16 In the Greek words there is clearly no place for the sophism of the
Jesuits. For if I say: “Ungodly persons are

(“lawless”), but they are not themselves

(“lawlessness”), ergo: not all

lawlessness is sin”; all will understand how ridiculous the argument is. But
when John says: “Sin is lawlessness,” this cannot be more suitably
translated than to say: Sin is what disagrees with the law of

God, or what conflicts with the law of God. From the Latin words Andrada,
following the Jesuits, takes

occasion to quibble, although he is not ignorant of the fact that his objection
has no ground at all in the Greek words, as can be understood from this
example. In 1 John 5:17 it is written that

, that

is, “everything that conflicts with righteousness,” is sin. Now I could weave
the following argument from the logic of the Jesuits: The devil and the
ungodly conflict with righteousness, and yet they are not sin itself; therefore
what John says is wrong, that everything that conflicts with righteousness is
sin. But who would not detest such wanton, sophistical quibbling, and
especially in so serious a matter?

Certainly sin is called

(“unrighteousness”) in the same way as it is called

(“lawlessness”),

because the Law is the rule of righteousness. As therefore all

unrighteousness is sin, so also is all lawlessness.

I beg the reader to consider attentively that Andrada had in the Council of
Trent itself contended long

and much in tragic tones that not all lawlessness, that is, not everything
which disagrees with the divine law and conflicts with it, is sin: afterwards,
in Bk. 5, where he vigorously defends the axiom of the Jesuits, he declares:
“Whatever departs from the commands of the prelates of the church, and
especially

from those of the Roman pontiff, and conflicts with them, is a frightful sin,
and he is involved in a greater crime who has broken the papal laws than he
who has broken the divine laws, especially if he is

carried away with scorn for the prelates and with contempt for the papal
laws.” These are the words of

Andrada. And, indeed, so severely does he insist on this, that he is not

afraid to declare with the Jesuits that those are to be held as heathen and
publicans who, following the precept of the Son of God and the

custom of the ancient church, are not held back by the order of the Roman
pontiff and his prelates from
partaking of both kinds in the Eucharist of Christ. This is where that
laborious disputation leads that not all lawlessness is sin, that the
commands of men are preferred to the divine commands. These things
Andrada argues, and that in the very Council of Trent.

17 Certainly Andrada must think of us Germans as nothing but beasts and

cattle of the field, from whom he thinks that he can by laughing wrench
away this most clear and firm axiom by means of such

a childish piece of sophistry. But the axiom stands invincible against all the
gates of hell: Whatever in

rational nature disagrees with the norm of the Law and conflicts with it,
whether it be a defect, or a disorder, or an inclination, or an action, or an
omission, is a sin. For the knowledge of sin comes not through philosophy,
which speaks only about voluntary actions, but through the Law. But the
Law accuses and charges us not only with consenting to concupiscence or
walking after our desires but also

with desiring itself. And this sin Paul says he would not have been able to
know except through the Law, which says: “You shall not covet.”

These very firm principles Andrada, indeed, endeavors to pollute with his
boastful lips, but he cannot

weaken them, unless by chance he wants to invent a norm of righteousness

and of sin in the church other than that which is in the mind of God, which
has been revealed to us in His own law. And indeed,

when he argues about the passage in James: “Whoever [keeps the whole
Law but] fails in one point has

become guilty of all of it,” he indicates plainly that love, such as, and as
much as, it is in the regenerate in this life, is the norm of righteousness and
that whatever does not oppose the measure of this love, even though it does
not measure up to the law of God, is not sin. And such things, he judges, are
venial
sins, also concupiscence itself. And elsewhere he approves what the
Scholastics say, namely, that sin is

against the nature of man as it is now constituted, rather than that it is

lawlessness.

But why do I dispute at length? It is easy to gather that the papalists do not
care much about lawlessness against the law of God, so long as there is no
resistance against those things which the pontiff bears in the shrine of his
heart. But it is useful that the readers should know that this is one of the
unwritten traditions of the Council of Trent, that not all lawlessness is sin.
And what is this if it is not to trample the law of God underfoot, namely, to
confess openly that something is lawlessness and yet to

ridicule those who on that account humble themselves before God and ask
that this sin be not imputed?

But let the reader himself consider this profane philosophizing of Andrada
about sin.

18 Of the same stripe is Andrada’s assertion in this dispute that “to cover
sin, to hide it, not to impute it, and to remit it” (Rom. 4:7; Ps. 32:1–2)
means nothing else than to root out all fibers of sin completely, so that not
even any vestige is left. This Tridentine grammar is plainly new. Paul is
therefore very silly to complain so womanishly in Rom. 7 if the remission
of sin so roots out the very

fibers of sin that not even a trace of it remains. Paul certainly says very
clearly that sin still dwells in his flesh after remission. How great therefore
is the impudence of this orator to invent a grammar that is clearly new, that
“to cover,” “not to impute,” and “to remit,” is to root out the evil itself
completely. The mercy seat, which covered the tables of the Law, was a
figure of how sins are covered. But was this covering of the ark the
extirpation of the tables of the Law? In Ps. 32:1 we have the verb (“to

conceal,” “to cover”), which is also used in Prov. 12:23: “A prudent man
conceals his knowledge,” that
is, according to Andrada, he extirpates it. In Ezek. 18:7 we read: “He covers
the naked with a garment,”

and in Jonah 3:8: “Let them be covered with sackcloth.” Let the reader, I
pray, here apply the new grammar of Andrada, and the transformation will
be astonishing. In Ezek. 1366 this word is used of the false prophets who
covered their sins with a vain show. Now, my good Andrada, does it mean
there to

extirpate sins?

But Andrada says: “In the psalm there soon follows: ‘in whose spirit there
is no deceit.’ But it would

be the greatest deceit to imagine that sins had been remitted which still
inhere in the flesh.” I shall reply nothing except what Augustine says in
Contra Julianum, Bk. 2, about this sentence of David: “He

confesses also the sins of the righteous, declaring that they place their hope
more in the mercy of God

than they trust in their own righteousness. And therefore there is no deceit
in his mouth, yes, in the mouth of all those to whom he gives the testimony
that they possess this true humility, or this humble

truth.” Let the reader set these two against each other! Augustine says that
to confess the sins also of the righteous is what David says in the words: “In
whose spirit there is no deceit.” But Andrada says:

“There is no deceit in the spirit of that person who acknowledges no trace

of sin in himself.” And he

applies here what Ps. 51:1 prays for, that the iniquity be blotted out. For the
word
signifies such a

deletion as when one turns a dish upside down and wipes it (2 Kings 21:13).
However, the

superscription of the psalm testifies that it speaks of actual sin, which

according to Augustine passes away so far as the act is concerned but
remains as guilt; about this the prophet prays that it may be blotted out in
this way.

But when the guilt has been so blotted out, see what David asks further:
“Wash me thoroughly from

my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin.” But what need is there of

continually repeated cleansing, if

the inquity of the adultery has already been blotted out, as the word

signifies? This David himself

shows when he says: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, etc.” And this
he says almost 50 years

after he has received circumcision. This, therefore, is the sin concerning

which Ps. 32 prays that it be

covered, for which everyone that is godly has need to pray.

19 However, I do not doubt that the pious reader has long ago become
disgusted with the impudence

of Andrada, which will shortly be worthy of a cardinal’s hat. Therefore I

shall add only one more thing,

a truly masterly trick of Andrada. The statement of John: “If we say we

have no sin, etc.,” he defiles in

this way, that he contends that it must be understood only of actual sins and
of adult persons who can
pollute themselves by their own action, namely, when the flames of
concupiscence suddenly carry away

with them some assent of the will. I beg the reader to consider attentively
whither the arguments of the

papalists about the remaining concupiscence in the regenerate lead.

Augustine in De peccatorum mentis, Bk. 2, argues that with the exception
of the one man, Jesus Christ, no one has either been or is now in

this life without sin. And elsewhere he says: “If all the saints, men and
women, were gathered in one

place and were asked, they would all say with one voice: ‘If we say we
have no sin, etc.’” But Andrada

recently learned at the Council of Trent: (1) that baptized infants and those
who have not arrived at an

adult age are not included in that statement; (2) when a man is without
actual sins, as he is in his sleep, then according to Andrada, he is not
included in that statement of John; (3) when the concupiscence is

not active, or also when it is aroused, if it does not carry away with itself
some assent of the will, then the adult has no sin. Let this therefore also be
one of the unwritten traditions of the Council of Trent,

that among the regenerate in this life there are very many who, contrary to
John’s testimony, can truthfully say that they have no sin, because there are
many baptized persons who have not yet come to

adulthood. And Andrada says in the Council of Trent that John’s statement
is to be understood only of

adults, that also these regenerate adults are very often without sin in this
life, for when they sleep, they do not spot themselves with any actual sin.
And when concupiscence rests, or when it is resisted in such
a way that it carries away no assent of the will with it, then, according to the
papalists, it is no sin.

Therefore during the greater part of this life regenerate adults will be able to
say, contrary to John’s testimony, that they have no sin. Therefore John’s
statement will have to be corrected to the effect that it is true only about
some of the regenerate in this life, and not always, but at times only: “If we
say that we have no sin, the truth is not in us.” If Andrada were dealing with
tree trunks and logs, which do not

understand anything, he could not more wantonly keep repeating whatever

he pleases without any proof. For he does not even consider it worthy of
mention that Paul with so sad a complaint bewails the

indwelling sin, which he calls “indwelling sin” in order that it can rightly be
understood what John says:

“If we say we have no sins, etc.”

20 Yes, on the basis of this his understanding, Andrada asserts that the
regenerate do not all and not

always in this life have need of the petition “Forgive us our debts, etc.,”
because neither concupiscence itself nor its impulses are sins, or debts, if
consent is not added. But Christ calls them debts because what the Law
demands we do not have, and cannot fulfill in this life, with that perfection
which it demands. Therefore with respect to those things which also after
the new life has been begun we still

owe because the Law demands them, we rightly pray that they be remitted,
as David does in Ps. 51. I

am not ignorant of the fact that Augustine sometimes says that the
regenerate do not, on account of the

concupiscence which remains, say: “Forgive, etc.,” but on account of actual

sins. But the same Augustine says, in Letter No. 29: “As long as charity can
be increased, certainly that which is less than
it should be is the result of a defect, and as a result of this defect there is not
a righteous man on earth who does good and does not sin; on account of
this defect, if we say that we have no sin, etc., (take note of this, Andrada!)
on account of which, no matter how much we have progressed, it is
necessary for us

to say: ‘Forgive us our debts,’ although all words, deeds, and thoughts have
already been forgiven.” The

same says in De verbis apostoli, Sermon 2: “But you say to me that it

suffices that I have received remission of all my sins in Baptism. Is the
infirmity then ended because the iniquity has been blotted

out? You still bear the fragile flesh; the body which is corrupted still
oppresses the soul; in any case, you still say until your weaknesses are
healed, ‘Forgive us our debts.’” These statements, which agree with

the Scripture, needed to be put forward. But this is the trick of the papalists,
that they snatch some statement from the fathers which they can twist
against the Scripture, also when they are not ignorant of

the fact that the fathers think and speak more correctly elsewhere.

But let this be enough about this subject, in which Andrada’s entirely too
insolent shamelessness has

led me on farther than I had planned. But I beg the reader to consider what
he thinks he can expect with

respect to the remaining articles of faith from the Council of Trent, in

whose inner chambers they philosophize so coldly, so lightly, and so
profanely about sin that they clearly seem to ridicule all religion, as will
become more evident still from what follows.

65 The edition of 1578, as also that of 1599 here read satisfactionis, where
the context clearly calls for sanctificationis. The edition of 1566 has
sanctificationis, and Nigrinus correctly translated Verneuerung oder
Heiligung. The error, however, stands uncorrected in the Preuss edition.
66 This reference is apparently not correct. We have not been able to
determine which passage Chemnitz had in mind.

Fifth Topic

WHETHER THE BLESSED VIRGIN WAS CONCEIVED WITHOUT

ORIGINAL

SIN

Appendix of the Decree of the Fifth Session of the Council of Trent

However, this same holy synod declares that it is not its intention to include
in this decree, where original sin is treated, the blessed and immaculate
Virgin Mary, the mother of God, but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus
IV, of happy memory, should be observed under the penalties contained in

these constitutions, which it renews.

Examination

1 Where Scripture speaks of original sin, it excepts only the one man Jesus
Christ, who, because He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, does not know
sin. “For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy,
blameless, unstained, separated from sinners,” characteristics expressed
more graphically in Greek:

(Heb. 7:26). Concerning all

other human beings, who are born of a mingling of a man and a woman, it
offers the universal sentence

without exception, Rom. 5:12: “Sin came into the world through one man,
and death through sin, and so

death spread to all men, because all men sinned”; 1 Cor. 15:22: “As in
Adam all die, so also in Christ

shall all be made alive”; Eph. 2:3: “We were by nature children of wrath,
like the rest of mankind.”

2 This is also what the ancient church held and taught. Augustine; De
natura et gratia, ch. 36, says:

“About the holy Virgin Mary, on account of the honor of the Lord, I want to
have no question whatever

when we treat of sin. For we know that on her more grace was conferred for
vanquishing sin in every

part, because she was worthy to conceive and bear Him of whom it is
certain that He had no sin, etc.”

This they slant, as if he thought that Mary is not included in the statements
of Scripture which speak of

original sin. However, because he clearly says that grace was conferred on
Mary for vanquishing sin, it

is quite clear that he does not think that Mary was conceived without sin,
for in that case it would not

have been necessary that grace should be conferred on her for vanquishing
sin; for this reason also he

speaks of original sin quite generally everywhere and excepts only Christ.
In De fide, ad Petrum, ch. 23, he says: “Hold to this most firmly, and by no
means doubt that every man who is conceived through coitus of man and
woman is born with original sin, subject to impiety,

subjected to death, and born on this account a child of wrath by nature.”

In De nuptiis et concupiscentia he writes: “For this reason Christ chose not

to be born of coition, that He might teach also by this that everyone who is
born from coition is sinful flesh, since only what was

not born from this was not sinful flesh.”

Ambrose, commenting on Luke, says. “For of all those born of a woman it

is the holy Lord Jesus alone who does not feel the contagions of earthly
corruption because of the uniqueness of His unstained

birth.”

The same author, commenting on Isaiah, says: “Every man is a liar, and no
one is without sin except

the one God. It has therefore been held that from man and woman, that is,
through the mingling of their

bodies, no one is thought to be without defect. But he who is without defect

is also without this conception.”

Augustine says that anyone who thinks the contrary opposes the Scripture.
In De perfectione justitiae

he writes: “Whoever thinks there is or has been any man, or men, in this
life, except the one Mediator

between God and men, to whom the remission of sins would not have been
necessary, is in opposition

to the divine Scripture, where the Apostle says: ‘Sin came into the world
through one man, and death
through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all men sinned.’”

And in Contra Julianum, Bk. 5, ch. 15, he declares it to be heresy, namely,

where he had said: “If without any doubt the flesh of Christ is not sinful
flesh but similar to sinful flesh, what keeps us from

understanding that, aside from this one exception, all other human flesh is
of sin?” A little later he adds:

“Whoever denies this is found to be a detestable heretic.” Here he clearly

affirms that Mary was conceived in original concupiscence, for he says:
“From this it is apparent that this concupiscence

through which Christ did not67 want to be conceived caused the

propagation of evil in the human race.

For the body of Mary, although it came from there, nevertheless did not
transmit it into the body, because she did not conceive it from there.”

3 Bernard also says: “With the exception of the man Christ, it is true of all
what one humbly confesses: ‘I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did
my mother conceive me.’”

This was the understanding of the ancient true and purer church, built up
from the clearest testimonies of Scripture. Yes, also Lombard says, Bk. 3,
distinction 3: “The compromise can well be stated and believed according
to the testimonies of the saints that at first the flesh of the Word was subject
to sin, as was the remaining flesh of the Virgin, but that it was so cleansed
by the operation of

the Holy Spirit that, free from all infection, it was united with the Word.”
Therefore at the time of Lombard the opinion that Mary was conceived
without original sin was still unknown.

4 But let the reader consider what finally results as soon as, apart from the
Word and with some show of good intention, one departs even a little from
the testimonies of Scripture. For Lombard, having taken
occasion from the words of Augustine, begins to argue without the Word of
God that it could have happened, since Mary conceived Christ through the
Holy Spirit, that she also at the same time was wholly purified and freed
from all sin, also from the tinder itself. But those who followed Lombard
were not content with that opinion; going further, they began to argue that
Mary, although she had first

been conceived in original sin, was later sanctified in the womb and born
without sin. And although this

could not be proved by any testimony if Scripture, an apocryphal story of

the nativity of Mary, which is

now found in the Protevangel of James, was put forward at first as an

opinion not altogether to be disapproved, but later it was approved as
canonical truth. And when, in two questions concerning the

Virgin Mary, the limits set by the Scripture had already been exceeded,
some began to contend in the

schools that also the Virgin Mary had been conceived without original sin.
Of this opinion Scotus later

became the patron. By no testimony of the Word of God were they able to
show this. On the contrary,

they did not even try, but they reasoned from the possible, that Christ was
able to preserve His mother at her very conception from all contagion of
original sin and that this is consistent with the dignity and honor of the
mother of the Lord.

But many, like Thomas, Bonaventura, Gregory of Ariminium, etc., at that

time contradicted this opinion, because it was not only set forth without the
Word of God and the testimonies of antiquity but

it also conflicted with clear testimonies of Scripture. Nevertheless,

gradually the festival of the Conception of Mary began to be instituted in
certain places. But there were nevertheless many who contradicted, as also
the gloss De consecratione, distinction 2, in the chapter beginning
Provocandum, testifies. The thing was done amid great contentions, not
only in the schools but also in the preaching

before the people, since one side fought with testimonies of Scripture and
the voices of antiquity, while

the other side reasoned from the dignity and excellency of the prerogatives
of Mary and instead of proofs brought revelations, miracles, and similar
things.

Finally, in the year 1483, the Roman Pope Sixtus interposed his authority.
But how? Did he want to

have this question decided from the Scripture? By no means! However,

because there was not yet a decision by the Roman Church and the
Apostolic see, both opinions were free, so that neither side should be
accused or condemned as being heretical; and yet he indicates in a manner
that is not obscure

which opinion he himself prefers. For because the Roman Church at that
time celebrated the festival of

the Conception of Mary, he decreed that no one should censure the opinion
on account of which the festival had been instituted, namely, that Mary had
been conceived without original sin. For already before, in the year 1466,
when a great sale of indulgences had been proposed, he had decreed that the

festival of the wondrous conception of the Virgin Mary should be

celebrated by all the faithful with a

special ceremony in which she is asserted to have been conceived without

original sin. And in the year

1439 the Council of Basel, Session 36, determined that the opinion that
Mary was never subject to
original sin but was always immune from all original and actual guilt
should be held and embraced by all Catholics, and that from then on no one
was allowed to preach or teach the contrary.

I have reviewed these things in order that it may be the better understood
what the appendix of the

Tridentine decree wants to express where it seemingly incidentally says

that, with respect to the conception of the Virgin Mary, the constitutions of
Sixtus IV are to be observed, namely, first, that one

is free to think outside of, beyond, or also contrary to the Word of God on
the question whether the blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without
original sin; secondly, that the opinion which asserts that she has been
preserved wholly from all contagion of original sin in conception and birth
is not to be reprehended from Scripture; thirdly, that no one may dare to
indicate that he does not entirely approve

the revelations, miracles, etc., by which that opinion is established outside

of and contrary to the Scripture; fourthly, that the festival of the Conception
of Mary is to be observed religiously with papal

indulgences with regard to those causes on account of which it was

instituted.

5 However, because these things are very crude, the Tridentine fathers
wanted them to be retained all right, but they were afraid to expose them.
They therefore wrapped it all up in a certain generality, which is
nevertheless not so obscure that it cannot be noticed. Therefore I will unfold
and explain that

generality in a few words to the reader. Sixtus lists these reasons why the
festival of the Conception of

Mary should be celebrated. “Because Mary is the way of mercy, the mother
of grace, the friend of piety,
the consoler of the human race, who prays earnestly for the salvation of the
faithful who are burdened

by the weight of transgressions and intercedes ever watchful with the King,
whom she bore, therefore

we consider it necessary that all the faithful celebrate the festival of her
wondrous conception, that from this they may become more fit subjects of
divine grace through the merits and intercession of the Virgin.

And we ordain that those who have taken part in the celebration shall obtain
the same indulgence and

remission of sins which are obtained at the Corpus Christi festival.”

6 Anselm describes the origin of the feast of the Conception of Mary in this
way, that, when a certain abbot was in danger of shipwreck, and devotedly
called on Mary, the hope of the wretched and the desperate, a certain man,
sent by Mary, appeared to him, who revealed that if he wanted to escape
that

danger, he should promise that he would celebrate the day of the

Conception of Mary on the eighth day

of December and would preach that it should be celebrated. And Anselm

concludes: “Therefore, we, brethren, if we want to reach the portal of
salvation, let us celebrate the Conception of the Mother of God with worthy
services that we may be rewarded by her Son with a worthy reward.”
Another legend

tells that Mary appeared to a certain cleric and said: “If you will solemnly
celebrate the festival of my

conception annually on the eighth day of December and will preach that it
should be honored, you will

be crowned with me in the kingdom of my Only-begotten.” And the reason

is there given why the conception of Mary and of Christ, but not also those
of other saints, should be celebrated. “For she is

worthy of this superiority over the other saints, because all the saints are
sanctified and made blessed through her. For Christ is called the Saint of
saints, and she, the Saintess of saints. Let us therefore celebrate her
conception with worthy ceremonies, that through her merits and prayers we
may be delivered from worldly cares and from all evils and be led to the
joys of paradise.” There are also subjoined in a legend various miracles,
through which Mary herself by special appearances approved this opinion,
that she was conceived wholly without any original sin and that she
punished in many strange ways those who, with the exception of the one
Man, Jesus Christ, follow the universal definition

of the Scripture: “In sin my mother conceived me.”

7 All these things and others similar to them the appendix of the Tridentine
decree embraces, which commands to observe the constitutions of Sixtus
IV. And I think that some among them, held back by

shame, were not willing that such things should be enumerated by name and
expressly. But because they were nevertheless to be retained and
strengthened, it seemed good to wrap them up in that certain

generality, which I judged should be explained briefly to the reader.

8 But if anyone desires to know what the judgment of the Council of Trent
is concerning the conception of Mary, it could indeed seem, because
mention is made of the constitutions of Sixtus, that it

leaves a person completely free to have his own opinion in the matter, but
the words show something

entirely different. For when they had said that Adam had transmitted sin to
the whole human race, they

at once attach the appendix: “However, this same Synod declares that it is
not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated, the
blessed Virgin Mary.” But by what documents do they show that the Virgin
Mary is to be excepted from the express general statements of Scripture
about original sin? Does the Holy Scripture teach so? It does not teach so. Is
there perhaps a mention among

the ancients of some tradition of this kind, as received from the apostles?
There is none. Did the ancient church perhaps think so? Did the fathers
teach so? This also cannot be shown. But revelations are alleged, miracles
are invented. We have shown above how Augustine proves from Scripture,
in Contra

litteras Petiliani, that in matters of faith, after the establishment of the

canon of Scripture, neither through revelations nor through miracles is
anything to be believed outside of or contrary to the Scripture; that many
such things are invented by men; and that, if they are not invented, the
Scripture

nevertheless forewarns that we should not believe them contrary to the

Word (Deut. 13; Matt. 24:23–26;

2 Thess. 2:2–3). Therefore the papalists care neither for the Scripture nor
for the traditions when they

want to establish new articles of faith; but the only basis is what Persius
says: “What we want is holy.”

Or as the canonists say: “The will of the pope is his law in whatever he
wants.”

9 But in this dispute I want nothing taken away from the dignity of the
blessed Virgin Mary. For I embrace with the greatest reverence of mind
what she herself sings: “Henceforth all generations will call me blessed, for
He who is mighty has done great things for me.” But I think that the Virgin
Mary is

rightly proclaimed blest if those things are attributed to her which are both
in agreement with the Scripture and can be proved from there, so that the
name of the Lord may be holy. No other celebration
can be pleasing to her.

67 A printer’s error here goes through all editions of the Examen from the
first of 1566 through the Preuss edition. All have Mam concupiscentiam per
quant Chrisms concipi voluit. But the context calls for the negative:
“through which Christ did not want to be conceived.” Nigrinus renders the
sense correctly: Die Lust, durch welche Christus nicht wollte empfangen
werden. The quotation is from Augustine, Contra Julianum, Bk. 5, ch. 15:
per quam Christus noluit concipi. MPL, Vol. 44, p. 689.

Sixth Topic

CONCERNING THE WORKS OF UNBELIEVERS, OR OF THE

UNREGENERATE

From the Decree of the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent

Chapter I

CONCERNING THE INABILITY OF NATURE AND OF THE LAW

TO JUSTIFY MEN

In the first place the holy synod declares that for a right and true
understanding of the doctrine of justification it is necessary that everyone
acknowledge and confess that, since all men had by the disobedience of
Adam lost their innocence, been made unclean, and (as the apostle says)
become by nature the children of wrath (as the synod has set forth in the
decree concerning original sin), they were to such an extent servants of sin
and under the power of the devil and of death that the Gentiles could

not through the power of nature nor even the Jews through the very letter of
the law of Moses be freed

or arise from it, although in them free will was by no means extinct, though
its powers were weakened

and bowed down.

CANON I

If anyone says that a man can be justified before God through his works
which are done either through the power of human nature or through the
teaching of the Law, without divine grace through Christ Jesus, let him be
anathema.

CANON VII

If anyone says that all works which are done before justification, for
whatever reason they may have

been done, are truly sins, or that they merit the hatred of God, or that the
more earnestly anyone strives to dispose himself for grace, the more
grievously he sins, let him be anathema.

Examination

I have said a number of times that the writing of Andrada, which he

undertook during the council at

the command of the fathers, has helped us to understand the decrees of the
council more correctly and to

look into them more deeply. For the decrees place before us only the
conclusions, or (as they say) the

bare decisions. But through the aid of Andrada we now begin, in almost
every single decree, to recognize certain secrets, namely, what matters were
disputed and deliberated in the council, by what cunning the decrees were
composed, and in what sense the fathers wanted them to be accepted. Of
this

the present locus will give us an excellent example. For no one would easily
divine what the purpose of

these two contrary decrees might be:

1. That all men are on account of original sin to such an extent servants of
sin and under the power of

the devil and of death that the Gentiles could not through the power of
nature nor even the Jews through

the very letter of the Law of Moses be freed or arise from it.

2. That they pronounce the anathema on anyone who says that the works
which are done before justification, for whatever reason they may have
been done, are truly sins.

However, Andrada’s revelations will unfold these mysteries for us.

Therefore I shall simply recite his

explanation without the noise of his grandiloquence.

SECTION I

The Opinion of Andrada about the Works of Unbelievers

1 He relates that Canon 7 was set up on account of those who so enlarge the
corruption of nature that they maintain that as long as it is without
righteousness nothing emanates from it that is not contaminated with the
foulness and guilt of sin, unless it has previously been formed by
righteousness

and renewed by the Spirit. Therefore the meaning of that canon according
to Andrada’s declaration is

this, that from the ungodly, in whom the person has not been reconciled to
God and renewal of the nature through the Spirit has not been begun, yes,
who are without the righteousness of which Paul speaks, many works
emanate which are without any foulness and guilt of sin. For I recite the
words of

Andrada, who adds: “But what is lacking in works of this kind is to be

ascribed not so much to a lack of
righteousness as to the lack of divine knowledge.”

2 Because he cannot deny that Augustine and Prosper, on the basis of the
teaching of Scripture, argue very differently about this question than do the
Scholastic doctors, he says that it has not yet been defined by the church
and by councils what estimate should be placed on the works of unbelievers
and

that therefore everyone is free to have his own opinion. But the reader
should understand that liberty of

opinion as follows. The Scholastics argue that an unregenerate person can,

without faith and the Holy

Spirit, through mere natural powers, fulfill the commandments of God as

far as the substance of the act

is concerned and that the unbeliever who in this way does the works of the
commandments does not sin;

that also a person living in mortal sin can purely through his natural powers
avoid and shun every mortal sin, so that he does not commit it again, and
that the unbeliever in this way, by doing what he

can, namely, by removing the obstacle of mortal sin and by eliciting a good
act through his free will,

properly merits that God should give him grace. But if anyone asks what
the Council of Trent thinks of

these Scholastic opinions, he will not easily be able to detect this in the
decrees, and one could well imagine that it had been with the intention of
disapproving these opinions that these words were placed

in the decree, namely, that men are to such an extent servants of sin that the
Gentiles could not through

the power of nature be liberated and arise from it. But Andrada, writing at
the behest of the council during the council itself, says that everyone is free
to have his own opinion in this disputation. Indeed, among these free
opinions he recites also this one: That although the virtues of unbelievers
are not perfect and worthy of eternal rewards, human powers can
nevertheless sometimes, when they are supported and sustained only by
general aids, avoid all turpitude of sin.

Augustine certainly says of the Pelagians: “Some, indeed, presume so much

for free will that they think that we need no divine help in order to keep
from sinning, once freedom of the will has been granted to nature.” And he
always quotes against them the statement of Paul, 2 Cor. 13:7: “We pray
that

you may not do wrong.”

In De peccatorum mentis, Bk. 1, ch. 5, he says: “Let us drive away from our
ears and minds those who say that once we have received free will we need
not pray that God may help us to keep us from

sinning.” But I see that what at one time were Pelagian opinions have now
in the Council of Trent become free opinions.

3 Andrada reports that this opinion finds the greatest approval among the
wisest men, that unbelievers need not only a general influence but special
aids of divine help in order to do works free

from all guilt. Who would not accept this as soundly spoken! But the way
Andrada explains himself, he

understands special aids not of the grace of regeneration and renewal

through the Holy Spirit but of those peculiar emotions or impulses in the
unregenerate which we commonly call “heroic,” such as were found in
outstanding heathen. And by means of these aids, so he says, unbelievers
who are without

the Spirit of regeneration and renewal are able to do works which are
devoid of all turpitude, free from
all guilt, and tainted by no fault; and that, though he cannot refer these
unbelieving actions to God, whom he does not know, they nevertheless
greatly redound to the glory of God, because they are not tainted by any
turpitude.

He adds: “Although these peculiar aids are lacking, we do not for this
reason think that all these actions, undertaken intentionally and deliberately,
are sins. And even if they are sometimes sins, they are sins not because they
come from a godless and unbelieving mind but only because they are not
done

to the true end, that they may serve God.”

4 In my booklet against the Jesuits I had noted down certain very

inappropriate dicta of Justin, Clement, and Epiphanius on this question
which most manifestly conflict with the Scripture. For instance, where
Justin argues that “Socrates and Heraclitus were Christians, because they
lived according to right reason”; Clement says that philosophy by itself
justified the Greeks; Epiphanius says

that many were justified and saved without the law either of Moses or of the
Gospel, solely through the

law of nature. For these statements Andrada does not seek a mitigation that
might be according to the

analogy of faith, but he undertakes to defend them as they sound; for

nothing is so absurd and ungodly

that he does not hope to be able to defend it by his grandiloquence. But in

the beginning he raves as if

seized by frenzy to levy war against the gods, to violate the laws of heaven,
etc., if we do not accept any and all sayings of the fathers, even if they are
against the clearest statements of the Scripture. But I beg you, reader, hear
patiently what monstrous things have slipped from Andrada amid these
ravings. For
you will see that the profane and shameful opinions of Thammerus
concerning faith and concerning philosophical salvation without the Word
of God and without the Holy Spirit, of which the papalists themselves in
Germany were until now ashamed, are now not only secretly cherished in
the very bosom

of the Council of Trent but are publicly proposed to be embraced and kissed
by all.

5 And, indeed, I have read many things of this kind as having been disputed
both among the ancients and in more recent writers. However, I can truly
confirm to the reader that with no one have I read things which are so
shamelessly profane, so insulting to the Word of God, and so blasphemous
against

the incomprehensible judgments of God as these Cerberean barkings of

Andrada. For why should I not

call the thing by its right name? But let the reader understand from this that
it is only a pretense when

the papalists publicly proclaim that they are contending for the apostolic
traditions. For it is all the same to them what religion anyone embraces,
whether it be the philosophical one or perhaps the Turkish, if

only the status of their kingdom remain whole. For to such men as are
entirely without the Word of God

they freely promise salvation. It is in this sense that Andrada writes, and
that during the very Council of Trent: “There is,” says he, “no doubt that
faith is necessary for righteousness and eternal life. For the

just shall live by faith. But this faith and the true knowledge of God for
righteousness and eternal salvation can be had not only from the sacred
writings and the divine oracles but also from those things
which are subject to the senses.”

And so he interprets the first chapter to the Romans. And soon, according to
his usual manner, he adds the exclamation: “The philosophers, who
shuddered at the foolish multitude of gods and with their

mind embraced and religiously venerated the one God whom they sought
with all their powers, striving

always to please Him — do you, Chemnitz, say that they were without that
faith and knowledge of God

through which the ungodly is justified and by which the just lives?” In sum,
he tries to prove that God

cannot be defended against the charge that He is either unjust or cruel if we

do not believe that knowledge of God to have been sufficient for salvation
which is both naturally implanted in the minds

of men and can be acquired by the reflection of the creatures.

What, I ask, does it signify to Andrada that Paul says: “‘Everyone who calls
upon the name of the Lord will be saved.’ But how are men to call upon
Him in whom they have not believed? … So faith

comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of
Christ” (Rom. 10:13–17). For

this reason God has certainly from the beginning of the world by the gift of
a definite Word revealed

Himself and His will to the human race. For that alone is the ordinary
instrument of God through which

the Holy Spirit operates and kindles the faith which is necessary for
salvation.
6 But stop a bit, reader, for you do not yet have the entire mystery of
iniquity which, as we learn from Andrada, was stirred up about this
disputation in the private meetings of the Council of Trent. Andrada

senses the strength of this objection, that that general and confused
knowledge, such as it was in the heathen, is not sufficient for salvation,
because the knowledge of and the faith in the redemption through Christ
has been necessary for salvation in all ages.

But prick up your ears and hear how Andrada learned at the Council of
Trent to solve this objection.

For he says: “Created things are ruled according to divine providence; the
redemption of the human race

through Christ is kept in wraps and hidden. Therefore the philosophers who
had observed that general

providence of God surely at the same time understood that God would leave
nothing undone that men

might enjoy everlasting happiness. And so they must not be said to have
been wholly ignorant of Christ

Jesus, the crucified, even though they had by no means fully found the way
which God would use in providing for the salvation of men.” But these are
not human but diabolical mockeries of justifying faith

and of the divinely revealed Word. How modestly and how piously
Augustine speaks of the judgment of

God when he comes to the question of predestination in De correptione et

gratia, ch. 8: “If anyone asks me, I reply that I do not know. For not
arrogantly, but acknowledging my limitation, I listen to the apostle as he
says: ‘But, who are you, a man, to answer back to God?’ and: ‘O the depth
of the riches
and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments
and how inscrutable His

ways!’ Therefore, to the extent that He sees fit to make His judgments
known to us, let us give thanks;

but to the extent that he sees fit to conceal them, let us not murmur against
His counsel, etc.”

In Hypognosticon, Bk. 3, we read: “I do not want you to ask me, a man who
fears and trembles at His inscrutable and incomprehensible judgments, why
He works something for one and not for another.

Because what I read I believe; I do not investigate it. For who is the man
who can answer back to God?

etc.”

7 But Andrada, when disputing about the philosophers to whom God did
not reveal His Word, says:

“For there can be no more shocking harshness and cruelty than to deliver up
human beings to everlasting torments on account of lack of that faith which
they could in no way obtain.” And afterwards, concerning the philosophical
faith he says: “Since they were not able to possess any other

knowledge from nature, only some wild, hideous enemy of humanity could
think that it could become

an obligation to do impossible things.”

Dear God, how full are these words of horrendous blasphemy against the
fearful and

incomprehensible judgments of God! And these things, which would be

disputed more fitly among the

barbarous Turks, Andrada wrote in the midst of the Council of Trent. And
what is this if it is not to tread underfoot the Word of God, to mock
justifying faith, and to blaspheme the judgments of God? Why do

we marvel, therefore, that the papalists ascribe so little to the Scripture,

since they are not ashamed to invent both a faith and a church which has
altogether no Word of God, either written or revealed?

Once upon a time the Marcionite Apelles, in Eusebius, Bk. 5, ch. 13, said
that everyone should be left

in that which he believed, for all would be saved if only they believe in the
Crucified and are found in

good works. Rhetorius later taught, as reported in Philastrius, that all

religions, if only they have the intention and the endeavor of worshiping
God, are on the right road. But now (O shameful blemish on

the last age!) in the midst of the Council of Trent, Andrada ascribes the true
faith, the righteousness of faith, and eternal salvation to philosophers who
neither have the sacred writings nor the divine oracles.

Let him therefore fashion a new church, another heaven, and a special bliss,
where the members, citizens, and participants are all who have been
ignorant of the Word of God, if they have but lived according to reason.
Therefore let the statement of Paul, 1 Cor. 1:21, be blotted out and trodden
underfoot: “Since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God
through wisdom, it pleased God

through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.” In vain
therefore Isaiah exclaims: “To

the teaching and to the testimony! If they do not speak to you according to
this Word, there shall be no

morning light for them.”

8 Neither will that stand which Christ says, John 17:17: “Sanctify them in
the truth; Thy Word is truth.” But that opinion which Andrada is not
ashamed to confess publicly at the Council of Trent Augustine clearly
refutes and condemns as Pelagian, namely, that some were saved without
knowledge

of and faith in the Gospel, solely through the law of nature ( De natura et
gratia, ch. 2; De [gratia Christi et de] peccato originali, Bk. 2, ch. 26; Ad
Bonifactum, Bk. 2, ch. 21). And in Contra Julianum, Bk. 4, ch. 3, he
addresses the Pelagians thus: “Perhaps you will provide for Fabricius,
Regulus, Fabius,

Scipio, Camillus, and other such men some place between damnation and
the kingdom of heaven, where they are not in misery but in everlasting
happiness, although they did not please God, for it is impossible to please
Him without faith, which they had neither in their works nor in their hearts.
I do

not think that you are so far gone that you would do so shameless a thing,
etc.”

But what do you say, good reader? What Augustine thought not even the
heretics would dare, that is

now freely not only debated but publicly written and published, and that not
in some philosophical school but, please God, in the most holy and
ecumenical Synod of Trent. Sleidanus writes that in the year 1552, while
the Council of Trent was in action, a certain Franciscan, in a public sermon,
when he

explained the second chapter to the Romans, taught that those who had not
had the knowledge of Christ,

if they had but lived honestly, had attained salvation. After this he ceased to
teach, as jf that teaching were not being approved by the fathers. But now
Andrada, through a public writing which he composed

in the very council, approves and defends that opinion.

And I now bear it more willingly that I am so shamefully reviled and

scourged by the haughty harshness of Andrada; because in this way such
mysteries of the council are betrayed from which the

readers can understand more clearly than from the written decrees what
opinions about religion were debated in the inner council chambers, what
kind of reformation of doctrine they sought, and how deceitfully they stated
and concealed very many things in their decrees. Not easily would anyone
have

noticed that this profane opinion is concealed in these decrees, and even if
anyone would suspect such a

thing, many would cry out that this was being imputed to the decrees falsely
for the sake of arousing ill

will. But we have now the advocate and interpreter of the council, Andrada,
explaining the first chapter

of the sixth session, that a person cannot be justified by his works which are
done through the powers of

human nature. For what I had noted from Clement, that some men were
justified through philosophy,

this Andrada explains in this way, that philosophy itself never had the
power to justify but that it had at one time been necessary for the Greeks to
prepare themselves for righteousness. For it had been the divine will to use
the ministry of philosophy in order that it might adorn with the most
glorious ornaments of righteousness the men who were dedicated to this
most excellent discipline. However, he

understands not the heathen righteousness but the Christian, which leads
through to life eternal.

9 What Canon 7 wants to say in more obscure language about the man who
strives to dispose himself

for grace, that Andrada sets forth openly when he explains the saying of
Clement that philosophy is a
training toward Christ, for these are his words: “Because the meditation on
philosophy enlightens the mind with the knowledge of God, informs it
through piety, adorns it through the practice and love of virtues, it in a
measure builds a road to the Gospel. For a mind which has been
enlightened through philosophy (for of it Andrada is speaking) with the true
knowledge of God and the torches of virtues and has sufficiently busied
itself with the contemplation of divine things, would, indeed, be led more

readily to the remaining mysteries of the faith, etc.”

10 To philosophy, if it stays within its proper boundaries, we must certainly

assign its own place, and an honorable one too, in human life, but by no
means is it to be commingled with the doctrine of the

church in the things which are of the Spirit. For Paul says in 1 Cor. 1:23 that
the doctrine of the Gospel is foolishness to the Greeks, and in ch. 2:14:
“The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they
are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them.” In 2 Cor. 10:5, he
says that

every thought must be taken captive to obey Christ, because “the mind that
is set on the flesh is hostile

to God” (Rom. 8:7). And therefore he calls it

(“depredation”) in Col. 2:8 when even true

philosophy goes outside its own confines and invades the sphere of the
doctrine of the church. Even of

the true philosophers Tertullian says that philosophers are the patriarchs of
the heretics, who pollute the purity of the church with their teaching.

SECTION II

The Statements of Scripture Concerning the Works of Unbelievers

1 Let us return to the debate concerning the works of unbelievers. But let
the reader now cease to wonder that the papalists ascribe to the works of the
regenerate perfection and the merit of eternal life

by worthiness and that they think so lightly of the sins of believers. For they
teach that even the works

of the unbelievers can be free from all defect, not only so that they are not
sinful but so that the heathen are saved by them. But in order that this
doctrine of the works of unbelievers can be rightfully explained, those
things which are the works of the creation of God which still remain in man
must be

sharply distinguished from those which have come in through sin, as

Augustine reminds us in Contra

Julianum, Bk. 4, ch. 3.

2 First, therefore, the works of God which are left in man must be
distinguished from those which are per se corrupt. Augustine says: “The
soul and the body and whatever good things of soul and body are

naturally ingrafted also in sinners are gifts of God, since God made them,
not they themselves. Thus the

knowledge of numbers, the knowledge of the law of nature, and all true
concepts in man are in themselves and in their order good things; also the
arts and true laws built up from them are good things. So some dispositions
of the mind in man are forbidden by the law of God, others are
commanded.”

3 Secondly, to this distinction there must be added what Augustine says in

De natura et gratia, ch. 3:

“All good things which nature has in its formation, life, senses, mind, etc. it
has from God the Most High its Creator and Maker. But the imperfection
which darkens and weakens these good natural things,
so that it has need of enlightenment and healing, has been contracted from
original sin. Therefore the

natural good things which still remain in man have been in various ways
and horribly vitiated, damaged,

and contaminated through sin. For we have been robbed of the gifts of
undamaged nature, and in addition a sad wounding and deformity has
contaminated also those things which are good per se in nature. And
therefore the Scripture not only says that the imagination of the heart is evil,
but Jeremiah

declares that the heart itself is corrupt.

It is called the “sensuous mind” in Col. 2:18; a “corrupted mind” in Titus

1:15; “futility of the mind,”

“hardness of the heart,” and “darkened understanding” in Eph. 4:17–18;

“earthly wisdom,”

“unspiritual,” “devilish” in James 3:15. Therefore Paul also says in 1 Cor.

15: 50: “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” Therefore it
is called “renewal of the mind” in Rom. 12:2, yes, a

renewing of the entire man in Col. 3:9–10; 2 Cor. 4:16, etc. And yet there
remains a distinction between

nature itself and the defect by which nature has been corrupted through sin.
For the things which are in

themselves evil must be mortified and destroyed in the renewal. But nature
itself is not destroyed or effaced by grace, but it is enlightened, healed,
purified, and restored.

4 The third question is about the acts of the unregenerate. And here there is
this clear distinction.

Certain acts are in their very nature evil and prohibited by the law of God.
Others are in their nature not evil, such as the invention and practice of the
arts, the establishment of honorable laws, virtues in the

area of public, personal, and family life, etc. For that also the unregenerate
can in some measure present a certain external discipline and avoid external
disgraceful deeds which conflict with external discipline we shall show
under the topic “Concerning Free Will.” Therefore the question is about
those acts which

are in themselves honest and good. These virtues have a high distinction
also among the heathen, as

Aristotle says: “Neither the eveningstar nor the morningstar is more

beautiful than righteousness.” It is also certain that God wants all men, also
the unregenerate, held in check through external discipline, and to maintain
discipline, God has placed magistrates over the human race, wants men to
be ruled by

laws, wants violators of discipline to be punished through penalties. And

because governments cannot

be established or preserved without outstanding political virtues, God, for

the benefit of governments,

suppresses the tyranny of the devil, who intermingles all things with lusts
and crimes, and He arouses

special heroic emotions and impulses also in some unregenerate persons for
outstanding civic virtues. I

do not quarrel about what this activity of God in the unregenerate is called,
if only what is certain and

necessary is retained, namely, that it is distinguished from the grace of

justification, regeneration, renewal, and sanctification in those who believe
through the Holy Spirit. Thus Augustine, in Letter No.

130, argues that the continence of Polemon is a gift of God. And in Contra
Julianum, Bk. 4, ch. 3, he says: “How much more tolerable it would be, if
you would attribute those virtues which you say are in

the ungodly to a divine gift rather than only to their own will, though they
themselves do not know it.”

And in De civitate Dei, Bk. 5, he argues that the Romans strove on the way
of virtue for glory, honor, and empire. And he says in ch. 15: “If God would
not even grant to them this earthly glory of a most

excellent empire, no reward would be rendered to their good arts, that is, to
their virtues, by which they endeavored to attain to so great a glory. For
concerning people who appear to do something good in order to be glorified
by men even the Lord says: ‘Truly, I say to you, they have their reward.’”

5 Therefore the virtuous deeds of the unregenerate in their kind and in

themselves are not evil, that is, the essence, or substance, of the acts is not
evil, or with whatever other words this may be expressed.

Augustine is of the opinion that also heroic emotions toward excellent

virtues in the heathen are excited

by God and that He also uses them for the establishment of governments
and for the preservation of the

Creation of the world.

6 But now the fourth question still remains, and it is the principal one. For
from the things which we have said it appears to follow that these virtues in
the unregenerate are not sins but good works. But the explanation is easy
from the things which have been said above. Whatever still remains in
nature from

the first creation by way of design, life, senses, mind, etc., is in itself good
but has been wounded, corrupted, and contaminated through sin. Thus
Augustine learnedly replies that for a good work it is required not only that
something which is good in its kind may be done but most of all that it be
well
done. “For,” says he, “some things can be done, although those by whom
they are done are not doing

well. So, for instance, it is good to come to the help of one in danger; but if
he who does this does it

because he loves the praise of men more than that of God, he does not do a
good thing well, because he

does not do as a good person what he does not do with goodwill.” And on
this principle the question

concerning the works of the unregenerate can be most clearly explained if

we want to judge it on the

basis of statements of the Word of God. For there are two ways in which the
virtues of unbelievers will

be not good works but sins before the judgment of God.

First, by reason of their purpose. For it has been elegantly said by

Augustine: “Not by their services

but by their aims are virtues to be distinguished from vices”; again:

“Services are weighed not according to the acts but according to their
aims.” And he adds: “When therefore a person does anything in which he
does not appear to sin, if he does not do it for the reason for which he ought
to do

it, he is convicted of sin. True virtues, however, serve God, by whom they
are given to men, in men.

Hence whatever good is done by a person but is not done for the reason for
which it ought to be done,

true wisdom teaches that although it may appear good by virtue of the
service, it is a sin because the purpose was not right.” He proves that the
heathen did not do their good deeds for God but either for
their pleasure or for their greed or for their ambition. But it is unjust and a
sacrilege that virtues should serve vices, such as pleasure, avarice, and
ambition.

Secondly, that the works of unbelievers are not to be counted among the
truly good works but among

the sins is proved from this: Truly good works ought to serve God, not in
the oldness of the letter but in the newness of the Spirit, when He writes the
Law into the hearts of the believers. Therefore the works

which the old man does, who is not renewed by the Spirit of sanctification,
are not truly good works.

For that is not a good fruit which does not spring from the root of charity, as
Augustine argues at length in his book De spiritu et littera. To be sure, he
there concedes that the heathen naturally either do or understand some
things of the Law, but that those are to be counted among the truly good
works he steadfastly denies. For the conditions of a good work are
described thus by Paul: “Love that issues from

a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith” (1 Tim. 1:5); but love
is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal.

5:22); hearts are cleansed by faith (Acts 15:9); the blood of Christ purifies
the conscience (Heb. 9:14).

Likewise we read, Eph. 2:10: “We are His workmanship, created in Christ
Jesus for good works, which

God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them”; 1 Peter 2:5: “Offer
spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ”; Rom. 12:2: “Be
transformed by the renewal of your mind, that

you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and
perfect.” But since these conditions are not in the unregenerate, their virtues
can in no way be counted among the good works.
But Augustine proceeds still further and argues that the virtues of the
unregenerate not only are not

truly good works, but he proves that they are to be counted among the sins,
and that on these principles:

“An evil tree cannot bring forth anything but evil fruits, that is, only sins.”
These are the words of Augustine. Again he says: “Everything which is not
of faith, is sin.” Augustine shows that this statement does not speak of foods
only but that it is general. Again: “Without faith it is impossible to

please God” (Matt. 12:33); “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or
make the tree bad and its

fruit bad.” But before we are engrafted into Christ, we are wild olive trees,
that is, bad trees (Rom.

11:17 ff.). And in the prophets God everywhere rejects also the most
splendid works which are done by

an unreconciled person out of an ungodly heart which is without fear of

God, without faith and love of

God: Is. 1:13: “Incense is an abomination to Me; your appointed feasts My

soul hates”; Is. 66:3: “He

who slaughters an ox is like him who kills a man”; Prov. 15:8: “The
sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination.” These things are said about the
works of the sacrifices instituted by God, when they are

done either for the wrong purpose or from an ungodly heart. But without
the Spirit of God the hearts of

all the unregenerate are without the fear of God, without trust in God, and
without love to God.

Therefore they are ungodly.

Origen, expounding the statement of Paul “Whatever does not proceed from
faith is sin,” says that the

works of the heretics are turned into sins because their faith is not true. And
he quotes Ps. 109:7: “Let

his prayer be counted as sin!” Here belongs also what Paul says, Titus 1:15:
“To the pure all things are

pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds
and consciences are corrupted”; and John 16:8: “The Holy Spirit will
convince the world of sin, because they do not believe

in Me.” These statements of Scripture are neither obscure nor ambiguous;

they show that the works of

unbelievers, no matter how showy, are appraised as sins before the

judgment of God, not only because

they go wrong with respect to their purpose but chiefly on account of the
person who does them and of

the manner in which they are done. However, that in judging we do not
freely follow these very clear

statements of Scripture happens because they do not agree with the

Pharisaical judgment of our reason.

And as Augustine says in Letter No. 99: “By some native disposition of the
mind these virtues of the

heathen delight us, so that we do not easily condemn them.” But surely,
what is sin before the judgment

of God must be learned from nowhere except from His Word. It is no small
disgrace to teach that the

works of unbelievers are free from all guilt or contaminated with no sin. For
what is contaminated with
no sin, cannot fail to please God. And Augustine says to Julian: “You
introduce a kind of man who is

able to please God without faith in Christ, by the law of nature. This is the
reason why the Christian church so greatly detests you.” Let the reader
weigh these words of Augustine diligently: for he will understand from
them how detestable that opinion is which Andrada is not afraid to defend
in the

council itself.

SECTION III

Arguments of the Opponents

1 From this groundwork the matter itself can be understood, and the
objections can be correctly explained. Actions are in themselves and in their
kind not vicious or evil. How, then, do they become

sins? I reply: Even as the substance of the heart, insofar as it is a creature of

God, is good but on account of the defect of sin is called “desperately
corrupt” in Jer. 17:9, so actions which in their kind are not bad are polluted
and contaminated in the ungodly, because they are done by a person who is
neither

reconciled nor renewed, but corrupt and guilty. And God does not judge
according to the external work

but looks at the heart. Services also are considered with respect not to the
acts but to their aims. This

teaching must be retained that we may know how great is the depravity of
human nature through sin,

which contaminates also works good in themselves and turns them into sin
in the unregenerate. Thus Julian raises the objection against Augustine: “If
a heathen were to clothe the naked, would it then be
sin because it is not from faith?” Augustine replies: “Altogether, insofar as
it is not from faith, it is sin not because the act itself, that is, to cover the
naked, is sin but only an ungodly man will deny that not to glory in the
Lord in such a work is a sin.” Again: “But if mercy is in itself because of
natural compassion a good work, he uses also this good thing badly, who
uses it without faith; and whosoever

does this good thing without faith does it badly; but he who does something
badly certainly sins.

Therefore men are themselves sinners when they do even good things
badly, because they do them not

with a faithful, but with an unbelieving will, that is, a fool-lish and harmful
will, and that kind of will, as no Christian doubts, is an evil tree, which can
bring forth nothing but evil fruits, that is, only sins. For everything, whether
you like it or not, which is not of faith is sin.” Thus Augustine.

2 The other objection is: “If the excellent virtues in the heathen are the
special gifts and works of God, then they are not sins.”

Augustine replies: “Insofar as they are good, they are from God, who also
makes good use of the evil

deeds of the ungodly, by whom also good is done through evil men. But
they become sins in the unbelieving, because they pollute and contaminate
and misuse those things which are excellent gifts of

God.”

3 The third objection is that of Erasmus. “Is it,” says he, “the same before
God when Socrates governs morals through honest discipline, as if he had
either ravished his sister or poisoned his mother?” I reply: It is most certain
that not all sins, also in the unregenerate, are equal. For it will be more
tolerable for Sodom in the day of judgment than for Chorazin (Matt. 11:24).
But it does not follow
from this that the moral works of the unregenerate are good, or not sins. For
as Augustine says: “Among

these who are not good, some can be less, some more, evil.” Again: “To this
extent their thoughts will

defend them on the day of judgment, that they may be punished more
tolerably, because they have somehow naturally done what the Law
requires. For Fabricius will be punished less than Catilina, not

because the former was good but because the latter was more evil; and
Fabricius was less wicked than

Catilina, not by having true virtues but by not deviating to the utmost from
the true virtues.”

This statement of Augustine about the works of the unregenerate is very

clear and has been built up

out of sure and firm testimonies of Scripture. He also frequently repeats it

elsewhere, as in De civitate Dei, Bk. 5, through a number of chapters; Bk.
19, ch. 25; and in his comments on Ps. 31. In Ad Bonifacium, Bk. 3, ch. 5 he
says: “The Catholic faith distinguishes the just from the unjust not by the

law of works but by the law of faith, without which works which seem good
are turned into sins.” And in Letter No. 99 he says: “The virtues of the
heathen so delight us by a certain natural quality of the mind that we would
want those in whom they are found to be freed most of all from the
torments of hell, if it were not that human feeling looks at it one way, divine
justice another way.”

Ambrose says in De vocatione gentium, Bk. 1, ch. 3: “Without the worship

of the true God also that which seems to be virtue is sin; nor can anyone
please God without God.” Prosper writes in De vita contemplativa, Bk. 3,
ch. 1: “The apostle did not say: ‘Whatever is not of faith is nothing’; but by
saying, ‘it is sin,’ he declared that if works have not been of faith, they are
not to be considered good
things but vices which do not help those who do them but condemn them as
proud, and shut them out

from the regions of eternal salvation.”

Anselm, commenting on the 14th chapter of Romans, says: “The whole life
of unbelievers is sin, and

nothing is good without the highest good.” This statement, quoted by

Lombard, the Scholastic writers

say, is too harsh. A certain writer of postils says it is cruel.

4 Since these things are so, let the reader consider by what name that should
be called which the Council of Trent is not afraid to decree in Canon 7: “If
anyone says that all works done before justification are sins, let him be
anathema.” Therefore they pronounce the anathema on Augustine,
Ambrose, Prosper, Anselm, yes, on the Scripture itself, which affirms that
“whatever is not of faith, is

sin.”

Andrada corrupts the statement of Augustine, as if he meant that only those

works of unbelievers are

sins which are done without divinely excited heroic impulses. However, this
is a shameless falsehood.

For the entire discussion of Augustine in almost every line loudly proclaims
the opposite. But in vain

will anyone be astonished at this, since Andrada is not afraid to attribute to

the philosophers the true faith, Pauline righteousness, and eternal life. For
relying on his power to speak loftily, he transfers to himself what the Psalm
says: “With our tongue we will prevail; our lips are with us; who is our
master?”

To this I add another verse which is found in the same Psalm: “May the
Lord cut off all flattering lips,
the tongue that makes great boasts.” Amen, Amen.

Let no one in this debate bring in what Paul says: “For what have I to do
with judging outsiders?”

The reader certainly notices that in this disputation we are treating about the
purity or corruption of the doctrine, of sin, of faith, of justification, of
renewal through the Holy Spirit, or good works, etc. And

briefly: The meritum congrui (“the merit of what is appropriate”) is that

Helen, about whom this canon of the Council of Trent contends against the
teaching of the Scripture and of antiquity.

Seventh Topic

CONCERNING FREE WILL

From the Decree of the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent

Chapter II

CONCERNING THE DISPENSATION AND MYSTERY OF THE

ADVENT OF CHRIST

From this it came to pass that, when the fullness of that blessed time came,
the heavenly Father, the

Father of mercies and God of all comfort, sent to men His Son Jesus Christ,
announced and promised to

many holy fathers both before the Law and in the time of the Law, that He
might redeem the Jews, who

were under the Law, and that the Gentiles, who did not follow after
righteousness, might apprehend righteousness and that all might receive the
adoption of sons. Him God set forth as the Propitiator through faith in His
blood for our sins, but not only for ours but also for those of the whole
world.
Chapter VI

THE MANNER OF PREPARATION

Adults are, however, disposed to that same righteousness when, excited and
assisted by divine grace

and laying hold of faith through hearing, they are freely moved toward God;
believing those things to be

true which have been divinely revealed and promised, and this above all,
that the ungodly is justified by

God through His grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,
and nevertheless, knowing themselves to be sinners, by turning from fear of
divine justice, by which they are profitably shaken, to

a consideration of the mercy of God, they are raised to hope, trusting that
God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake, and they begin to love Him
as the fountain of all righteousness. And therefore

they are moved against sin through a certain hatred and detestation, that is,
through that penitence which must be done before Baptism, and finally they
resolve to receive Baptism, to begin a new life, and to

keep the divine commandments. Concerning this disposition it is written:

“He who comes to God must

believe that He exists and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him”;
and: “Be of good confidence,

son, your sins are forgiven you”; and: “The fear of the Lord drives out sin”;
and “Do penance and be

baptized, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”; and: “Go
therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and
of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you”; and finally “Prepare your hearts for
the Lord.”

CANON II

If anyone says that divine grace through Christ Jesus is given for this only,
that a person may be able

more easily to live righteously and merit eternal life, as if he could through
free will, without grace, do both, though hardly and only with difficulty, let
him be anathema!

CANON III

If anyone says that without the prevenient inspiration and help of the Holy
Spirit a man can believe,

hope, love, or repent as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be

conferred on him, let him be

anathema!

CANON IV

If anyone says that the free will of man, when moved and excited by God,
by no means cooperates by

assenting to God, who is inciting and calling, and thereby disposes and
prepares itself for obtaining the

grace of justification, and that it cannot dissent if it should want to, but like
an inanimate thing, does nothing at all and is merely passive, let him be
anathema!

CANON V

If anyone says that after the sin of Adam the free will of man was lost and
extinguished, or that it is a
thing in name only, yes, a name without a reality, a mere figment brought
into the church by Satan, let

him be anathema!

CANON VI

If anyone says that it is not in man’s power to make his ways evil but that
God works the evil works

even as He does the good, not permissively only but also properly and
through Himself, so that the treason of Judas is no less His own work than
the calling of Paul, let him be anathema!

Examination

It is of the utmost importance that the doctrine of free will should be set
forth correctly, accurately,

and clearly in the church against all corruptions, drawn from the true
foundations of the Scripture. For

all that the Scripture teaches about the conversion of man, about repentance,
about faith, about the new

obedience, about the spirit of grace and of prayer, about the corruption of
human nature through sin, and

about the benefits of the Son of God through the Holy Spirit, about how the
gifts of God are received,

how they are preserved or lost, how they grow or diminish, etc., can neither
be correctly understood nor

used in a godly manner, unless we contend for the purity of the teaching of
this subject, as it is contained in the fountains of the prophets and of the
apostles, against any and all corruptions in the church. And just as a man
who has conceived a certain purpose needs to deliberate about the means by

which he can accomplish that purpose, whether, how, whence, and with
what aids the things can be accomplished so that he may attain the desired
end, so, because the Scripture sets forth the doctrine concerning the
reconciliation with God, concerning the remission of sins, concerning
salvation and eternal life, concerning repentance, faith, prayer, the new
obedience, etc., it is altogether necessary to know whether and how they
can be attained and effected. The history of every age shows that the most

sad ruin in the foremost articles of the heavenly doctrine has followed in the
church when

(“another doctrine”) was permitted to enter this subject and a departure was
made from

the form of the sound words of the Scripture. When, however, this article is
rightly explained, it leads

man to a serious knowledge of himself and to true humility, so that,

acknowledging his sicknesses and

weaknesses, he understands why, in what manner, and how greatly he is in

need at all times of the Physician, the Son of God.

For these reasons the enemy hates this topic above every other and sows his
tares there, and therefore

he has also at all times tried to corrupt it through various tricks and
sophisms. This doctrine has indeed been transmitted clearly in
unambiguous words in the Scripture, but our wretched nature, foolish and
fascinated by admiration of itself, does not easily allow itself to be so cast
down that in spiritual matters and actions all things are spoken of as having
been received through the grace of God. Augustine rightly

says in De natura et gratia, ch. 53: “Why is so much assumed about the
ability of human nature? It has been wounded, hurt, injured, ruined. It has
need of a true confession, not of a false defense.”

SECTION I

Various Related Questions Concerning Free Will

1 The Tridentine decrees merely play with the various meanings of the term
“free will” in order to disturb the reader and to cover up and conceal the
matters themselves. For when they mix together without order and
distinction arguments about the essence of the will, about the quality of its
freedom in externals, about corrupt actions, and about the freedom of the
renewed will, how can so troublesome a

controversy be correctly explained? Therefore the sophisms based on

ambiguities must first be

removed, in order that we may be able without ambiguity to arrive at the

true question of this controversy; for so the explanation will afterward be
easy and clear.

2 First, there is on this subject no dispute about the animating, perceiving,

and moving power of the soul but about the part which knows and desires,
that is, about the mind, or intellect, and about the will of man.

3 Secondly, if free will, as Gabriel argues, is taken to be the very essence of

the will, so that there is meant by it also the essence of the mind, or
intellect, then, truly, it is quite evident that the essence of the mind and of
the will, although miserably injured, corrupted, and defiled through original
sin, has nevertheless not been wholly lost, destroyed, and annihilated.
Therefore, to deny in this sense that man

has a free will is the same as if anyone wanted to argue that man is an
animal that is lifeless, stupid, and irrational, which would certainly be to
rave while one is in possession of his reason.

4 Thirdly, free will properly signifies

, a power, energy, and faculty of the mind and will by

which it is distinguished from those creatures which either act naturally or

are violently driven without

thought or deliberation of the mind, without any choice and desire of the
will. And also in this meaning

of free will the explanation is not difficult. For original sin has not so
corrupted the substance of the human mind and will that in the unregenerate
man the mind and will have no movements or actions at

all. Nor is the corruption such that the unregenerate mind and will are
moved and act without thought,

deliberation, judgment, choice, desire, or aversion, as is the case with

creatures which act naturally or

are impelled violently. For this peculiarity remains still in some measure
from the first creation, that in those things which are done by the mind and
the will man judges, distinguishes, chooses, desires, refuses, rejects, and
either commands or prohibits or suspends some action in his external
members. In

this sense Ambrose, unless it is Prosper, argues many things in De

vocatione gentium, Bk. 1, ch. 3, where he says: “The judgment of the will
has been corrupted, not taken away.” Again: “Man has been

robbed by the devil not of his will but of the soundness of his will.” And
that is precisely what Bernard

wants to say in his disputation about freedom from necessity, that is, from
coercion.

Justin, in Apologia Secunda, makes this distinction: “Some things are

moved without a judgment, as a stone is moved downward. Others are
moved by a judgment, not, however, a free judgment, as when a
sheep, seeing the wolf, judges from natural instinct, not from deliberation,
that it must flee from him; it cannot choose whether it will flee or not.” But
man, by the power of understanding, judges that he must

flee from something or that he must pursue it. And because he chooses his
actions, not like the sheep

but after he has made a certain comparison of various reasons, therefore it is

said to be of free will.

However, these things must be prudently distinguished, in which objects,

things, or actions the mind and will have these faculties of themselves or by
their nature and to what extent they have them.

5 The fourth thing therefore is that in those things which in this corruption
of nature are still subject

to the senses and to reason the mind can to some extent think, deliberate,
judge, discern, approve, or disapprove. The will can to some extent will or
not will those things which have been shown by sense

or reason, choose or not choose, desire or turn away, command some

actions, or prohibit them to the external members, stop an action or change
it. And this is what we say in a general way, that unregenerate men can to
some extent maintain external discipline, that is, perform external honorable
works that are in harmony with the law of God and avoid crimes that are
contrary to it.

That in these matters such faculties to some extent still remain in this
corrupted nature many outstanding examples of the heathen testify. All civil
government testifies clearly to this, as does experience in individual cases.
The same is proved also from Scripture itself in Rom. 2:14: “Gentiles who
have not the Law do by nature what the Law requires.”

Rom. 10:3 tells us that those who do not know the righteousness of God
seek to establish their own.
In Phil. 3:6 Paul says that before his conversion he had lived blameless
according to the righteousness

which is in the Law.

6 But many varied and great hindrances are cast in the way of this freedom.
For those natural gifts which are left in man’s nature have been corrupted,
wounded, and in various ways depraved also as far

as external discipline is concerned.

Aristotle, in Ethics, Bk. 7, ch. 3, discusses why it happens that people often
do things which they know to be wicked. For instance, the mind does not
deny the universal idea: You shall not kill. But through

, that is, through the stubbornness of our passions, the particular idea that it
is wrong to

kill an enemy in such and such a case, or in a specific circumstance, is

snatched away from the mind.

Then the mind seeks an excuse and a pretext. Therefore the passions often
dash against the judgment of

reason and carry along with them the will itself, even though at first the
judgment of the mind protests,

but finally also the mind itself inclines somewhat to the passions, seeking
excuses and pretexts.

To this hindrance is added the tyranny of the devil, who is powerful in the
ungodly, kindling and fanning the flames of passionate longings, setting
various snares for them, through which he entangles

people so that finally there results a reprobate mind (Rom. 1:28), and they
become “callous” (Eph.

4:19). Also, amid the great confusions of this life the very mass of troubles
and dangers disturbs and hinders the rule of discipline. These things must
necessarily be added when there is debate about the faculties of the mind
and will, which remain from the first creation also in the present corruption.

But if it is said in this way, in this sense, and with this meaning that a
person is a free agent, or that he acts freely, that he has some liberty, or a
free will, then, because the things are true, men ought not to sow “disputes
about words” in the matter of the terminology. But it is nevertheless
necessary for the removing of ambiguities that a declaration be added what
freedom is to be understood, in what matters,

and to what extent, namely, that an unregenerate person has, in external

matters, a certain amount of freedom, by which he can in some measure
observe external discipline.

7 Fifthly, concerning evil or corrupted actions Augustine thinks and speaks

correctly in De peccatorum mentis, Bk. 2, ch. 5: “God does not aid us to
sin; but that we turn away from God is our own doing, and this is the evil
will” (ch. 18). And in Contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum, Bk. 1, ch. 2, he
records Julian’s objection: “Did free will, then, perish through the sin of the
first man, so that all are forced into sin by the necessity of their flesh?” He
answers: “Who of us can say that through the sin of

the first man free will has perished from the human race? Freedom has
indeed perished through sin; but

that was the liberty which was in Paradise and which had full righteousness
with immortality. But free

will has not perished even now in the sinner, because through it men sin,
especially all who sin with pleasure; and because they love sin, that which
they like pleases them. Therefore also the apostle says:

‘When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.’
Behold, it is shown that they

could also not have served sin at all except through another freedom.”
And in ch. 3 he says: “Not therefore, as they accuse us of saying, are all
forced into sin, as unwilling

ones through the need of their flesh. But if they are already of an age where
they use their own judgment, they are both held in sin by their will and are
precipitated from one sin into the other by their will. For he who persuades
and deceives them is after nothing else in them except that they may
commit

sin voluntarily or through ignorance of the truth or through delight in

iniquity or through the twin evils of blindness and weakness. However, this
will, which is free with respect to evil things, because it is delighted by evil
things, is not for this reason free with respect to good things, because it has
not been made free.”

Again he says: “With respect to evil that man has a free will in whom the
deceiver has, either secretly

or openly, implanted pleasure in roguery or who has persuaded himself.” In

De dogmatibus

ecclesiasticis, ch. 21, he says: “We fall as a result of our own power and
weakness.”

But to delight in sin is truly a wretched freedom. And though it is not

possible to sin without a free

will, for nothing lacking free will can sin; yet Anselm says: “The power to
sin is neither freedom nor a

part of freedom.” And Augustine, in Enchiridion, ch. 30, says: “Of what
kind, I ask, can the freedom of a bonded servant be, except when sinning
delights him? For he serves in a manner befitting a freeman

who gladly performs his master’s will: and therefore he is free to sin who is
the slave of sin.” In Ad Bonifacium, Bk. 3, ch. 8, he says: “Free will is
captive and is good for nothing except to sin,” and in De verbis apostoli,
sermon 13: “To be sure, when God does not assist, you act with a free will,
but badly.

Your will, which is called free, is fit for this, that it should be a damnable
slave girl by doing evil. When I say to you: ‘Without the help of God you
do nothing,’ I mean nothing good. For to do evil you have a

free will without the help of God, although that will is not free. For by
whom one has been overcome, to

him he is bound as a slave. And everyone who commits sin is a slave of

sin.”

In De civitate Dei, Bk. 14, ch. 11, he says: “Free will is then truly free when
it does not serve vices and sins.”

8 The question has therefore been discussed by some whether the will of an
unregenerate man can properly be said to be free for sinning, or in sinning,
(1) because, as has already been said, to be able to sin is not true liberty; (2)
because the unregenerate are subject to the captivity and tyranny of the
devil; (3) because they do not, with equal ability, busy themselves between
good and evil; (4) because these

are opposites, slave and free; but the unregenerate are slaves of sin.
However, we ought not rashly to engage in strife about words, especially
“unwritten” words, when there is certainty and agreement about

the matters themselves. Nevertheless, it is altogether necessary, when it is

said that people sin with a free will, to add the teaching about the tyranny of
the devil and the power of darkness, to which the unregenerate are subject.
And that is to be explained as it is described, Eph. 2:2: “He is at work in the

children of disobedience”; 2 Tim. 2:26: “That they may escape the snares of
the devil, after being captured by him to do his will”; 2 Cor. 4:4: “He has
blinded the minds, etc.”; Acts 5:3: “He fills the heart”; John 13:27: “He
entered his heart”; 1 Chron. 21:1: “He moved the heart.”
This also must be explained, that the will of the unregenerate man is free to
sin; not in such a way as

if the unregenerate man had equal power either to sin or to refrain from
sinning. In some measure, certainly, as he is able to observe external
discipline, so also he can avoid external crimes which conflict with
discipline. About the inner un-cleanness, however, and corruption it is
rightly said: “A bad tree cannot but bear evil fruit.” Again: “Whatever does
not proceed from faith is sin.” Here belongs the distinction which is found
in Damascenus and in Bernard, between the necessity of coercion and the
necessity of immutability; but this is not the place to explain this more fully.

This, however, can profitably be explained, why Augustine argues that a

man has a free will in evil

things; namely, that no one (as Augustine says in De gratia et libero

arbitrio, ch. 2) may in his heart accuse God, but that everyone should
impute it to himself when he sins. For although God preserves human
nature, such as it is in this corrupt state, giving and sustaining life and
motion, nevertheless He is not the cause of sin, that is, He neither wants nor
effects nor aids sin in man; but the cause of sin is the

will in the devil and in man. The tyranny of the devil is also powerful in the
ungodly; not in such a way that they are dragged into sinning by a
compelling necessity, through a violent external force, without

any rational fear of the mind, will, and heart, as if their neck had been
twisted and they were being forced; but (as Augustine says) the tyranny of
the devil works this, that he moves and excites the inborn

delight in iniquity, either in the senses or in the emotions, so that sin is

willingly committed by man.

Therefore this entire argument about the free will in connection with evil
belongs here, lest the cause

and reason of sin in the ungodly be sought and placed outside of the mind,
the will, and the heart of man, in some violent coercion outside of man. But
what James says must be retained: “Let no one say

when he is tempted, ‘I am tempted by God’ … each person is tempted when

he is lured and enticed by

his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin.”

9 That also is a very difficult and perplexing argument, that also those
things which are done contrary to the will of God can nevertheless not be
done apart from His will (as Augustine says). For if He did

not want those things to happen, they simply could not happen. However,
because God is not the effecting cause of sin, moving, impelling, forcing, or
assisting man to commit sins, Augustine says piously and modestly that
such things happen as God allows, permits, or abandons. And yet he adds in

Contra Julianum, Bk. 5, ch. 3: “Or whether it happens in some other way,
either explicable or inexplicable, only let this remain, that God is good and
just, that is, that He is not the cause of sin.” But that there have been some
disputes concerning that permission of God, I judge, has been for this
reason,

that this (permission of God) must not be understood in the same way as the
permissions of tyrants, which have connected to them a will which either
aids or approves their crimes. Nor is it to be so understood, as if God simply
did not care when men perpetrate crimes. Nor is that permission so free

and unbound that it is simply not subject to the providence of God. For
although God neither wants, nor

aids, nor effects sin, yet He determines boundaries, how far and how long
He will permit it, when and

where He will repress the ungodly. He hinders, upsets, represses many

thoughts, counsels, and undertakings of the ungodly, either for the sake of
the church, or that they may bring destruction upon

themselves.
That malice which arises from the will of men and is inflamed by the devil
God often uses for imposing deserved punishments upon those whom He
wants to visit with His just judgment.

Often also God turns the worst counsels of the ungodly and their most
pernicious endeavors to good

for the church and for all the godly, and often sins are also the punishments
of sins.

These things must certainly be explained when the permission of God is

dicussed. And yet the distinction remains fixed and immovable that in the
good works of the regenerate not only is their nature sustained by God, but
their mind is illumined by the Holy Spirit, and the heart renewed; and in

sum, God works it that they will and do what is pleasing to God; or (which
is the same), God wills, approves, works, and assists the good works in the
regenerate. These things neither can nor should be

said of sins.

However, these things require a special treatment, which, God willing, we

shall give elsewhere. Now

certain few things had to be said, both on account of the sixth Tridentine
canon and that we might more

conveniently arrive at establishing what the real issue is in the controversy

about free will. I am not ignorant of what is being argued by some about the
will and working of God in the evil acts of men. But

what the position of our churches is Article XIV of our Confession clearly
shows. Therefore those prickly remarks do not pertain to us.

10 So far we have spoken about certain questions which are closely related
to that question which is the principal and chief one in the controversy
about free will. These I wanted to dispose of and separate
from the rest briefly through a special explanation at the start. For I see that
the Council of Trent is misusing the mixing and confusion of those
arguments in order that the chief issue in this controversy

may be shifted, disturbed, and buried, as we shall show later. Therefore,

now that these have been

separated and put aside, we shall establish simply and clearly what the true
issue is about which chiefly there is dispute and question in this topic. And
in order that the explanation may be simpler, plainer, and briefer, I shall
distribute over a number of chapters the matters which appear to be
important for establishing the real issue.

ARTICLE II

The Chief Point at Issue in the Controversy Concerning Free Will

1 The chief question in the controversy concerning free will is about

spiritual impulses and actions, or about divine things, about works which
belong to God, that we think, will, and do something pleasing to

God and salutary for our soul, about spiritual righteousness, about inner acts
of worship, or by whatever

other terms these things may be explained. Spiritual things are here
understood as things which pertain

to the conversion of man, to faith, and to piety as these are set forth in the
Word of God, that is, in the Law and in the Gospel, such as the knowledge
and detestation of sin, contrition, fear of God; to know

by faith, meditate on, assent to, desire, seek, want, and accept the promise
of the Gospel; to pray, to sustain oneself through consolation, etc.; to begin
to perform the new obedience, love, hope, patience,

and other virtues according to the commandments of God; to struggle

against security, want of faith, and
arrogance; to crucify the passions and desires of the old man, to mortify the
deeds of the flesh; to begin and perform new impulses and actions, inside
and outside ourselves, that are in harmony with the Word

of God; and in short, that all things may be comprehended, by “spiritual

things” we here understand those things which the Law and the Gospel set
before us to begin, perform, retain, and preserve in mind,

will, heart, and in the remaining powers, and to do it too in the manner
which the Word of God prescribes for them, as much as can be done in the
infirmity of this life through the grace of the Holy

Spirit.

For also the Pharisaical righteousness in unregenerate men either feigns

something or outwardly does

something which resembles these things. For this reason we say expressly
that the question is how those

things which the Law and the Gospel set forth to us can rightly, truly,
seriously, and briefly be begun

and performed in the way which the Word of God prescribes. I have
enumerated these things rather simply and crudely in order that it may be
certain and clear without ambiguity what the matters or objects are about
which chiefly there is dispute in this controversy concerning free will.

2 The question is not whether through the Fall the essence of the soul has
been extinguished in man or whether in the soul the power to know and to
desire has been wholly lost. Neither is the question about what reason can
teach, nor about evil acts. Yet declarations about these questions are
necessary.

However, the chief question is how those spiritual things of which we have
already spoken can be begun and performed. But it is known that often
other questions are mixed into this debate to disturb the
simplicity of the doctrine.

Valla debates whether it is within the will of a person to move a foot, either
the right or the left. In the dialogs of Jerome a Pelagian says: “If I should
want to crook a finger, would the special help of God

always be necessary to me?”

In Augustine, De perfectione justitiae, Coelestinus makes an objection from

the passage of Paul, 1

Cor. 7:36 about the freedom to marry: “Let him do as he wishes.”

Augustine replies: “As if it were to be

considered a great thing to want to marry, when we are debating with great
diligence about the assistance of divine mercy.” Thus many argue that a
human being is not a tree trunk, rock, or a dumb

brute.

Others prove the free will of man from the fact that Christ says: “I would
have gathered you, and you

would not.” These questions must indeed be explained at the proper place,
but they must be separated

from the principal point of this controversy, lest it be either shifted or lost
sight of.

3 Second, in order that the point at issue in the controversy may be still
more clearly understood, when all the sophistical quibbling has been
removed, this also must be clearly established that the new

impulses in conversion are not impressed on the mind, the will, and the
heart as a seal is impressed on

wax, so that no new movements follow in the mind, the will, and the heart.
For grace is worked not that
conversion may be something insensible in man, without any emotion and
activity of the mind, will, and heart, as when Balaam’s ass speaks; nor is it
something violent, as when a rock is struck and pushed forward, which
neither feels that impulse, nor does it want or understand it; nor is it
something akin to

enthusiasm, as inspired men in old times delivered oracles which they

neither understood nor

remembered, or as in men that are possessed the devil often instigates the
movements and actions of their mind, will, and heart; and he himself speaks
and does many things through them, for which there is

no application of the mind, will, and heart in the possessed.

But because conversion is a certain disturbance and change in the mind,

will, and heart, etc., it is necessary that in a true conversion there should
occur and be some changes; for instance, the knowledge

of and reflection on the Law and on the Gospel, the desire, the will, and the
gift of assenting, from which there arises a struggle with the carelessness,
the want of faith, and the stubbornness of the old man. And in short, in
conversion there must occur and be some impulses and movements by
which there begins to happen some application of the mind to
understanding, of the will to assenting, desiring,

willing, etc., and the application of the heart in earnest love to matters
which are made known to us in

the Law and the Gospel. For where there happens and is no change at all in
the mind, the will, and the

heart, there no new knowledge follows, no reflection, no assent, no desire,

no attempt, no struggle, etc., but the whole person resists altogether and
does the opposite; in short, where the application of the mind, will, and
heart to those things which are set forth in the Law and in the Gospel is
begun through
no movement whatever of knowledge, reflection, desire, the emotions, etc.,
there it is certain that no conversion has taken place or exists. For a skilled
workman uses an inanimate instrument one way, but

the Holy Spirit works conversion in a different way in the mind, will, and
heart. For He brings it about

that we will and that we are able to understand, reflect, desire, assent,
accept, work, etc.

Therefore the question at issue in this controversy is not whether such

emotions and acts ought to occur and be in conversion; but this is the
question which is in dispute, whence man has and receives

this in mind, will, and heart, that he both wants and is able to begin and to
perform such movements.

Augustine neatly combines these three things in his discussion: to will, to

be able, and to do. And that

question we shall soon explain; but first certain other things must still be
explained, lest something either disturb or delay the explanation later.

4 Third, also this must be said, that we should not expect enthusiastic
seizures outside of and beyond the ministry of the Word and the sacraments.
For the Word of God, preached, read, heard, meditated on,

is the means, or instrument, through which the Holy Spirit is effective and
works in the mind, will, and

heart of men. And as God wills that the voice of His Word should be heard,
read, and meditated on, so

both experience and examples from Scripture testify that man is able to use
the external ministry of the

Word that he may hear, read, and in a measure meditate on it. However,
those men in whom renewal through the Spirit has already been begun will
hear and meditate far differently. John 8:47 reads: “He
who is of God hears the Word of God”; John 6:45: “He who hears from the
Father comes to Me”; Luke

8:18: “Take heed … how you hear.” Different, too, is the description in Pss.
1 and 119 how the godly

meditate on the Word of God. For it is not one and the same thing to hear
the Word and from the hearing

to conceive the new movements of penitence, faith, the new obedience, etc.,
which is properly the Spirit’s work. And yet through that instrument,
namely, through the Word as it is read, heard, meditated

on, and in no other way, the Holy Spirit is effective and works.

Thus Augustine says, De Fide, ad Petrum, ch. 32: “Hold most firmly that a
man whom neither ignorance of letters nor some frailty or adversity
hinders, can indeed either read the words of the Law

and of the Gospel or hear them from the mouth of some preacher, but no
one can obey the divine commands except he to whom God has previously
come with His grace, so that what he hears with the

body he may also perceive with the heart, and when through the working of
God he has received good

will and power, he may both will and be able to do God’s commands, etc.”
Therefore the beginning

must be made wholly from the Word, that it be read, heard, and meditated
on.

5 Fourth, there must also be observed in this controversy the distinction of

Lombard about the four states of the free will: (1) what it was like in
uncorrupted nature before the Fall; (2) what it is after the Fall, before it has
begun to be healed and renewed; (3) when it has already begun to be healed
and renewed, which renewal grows and increases throughout life; (4) what
it will be in the future, in the glorification or after it. For there will be
altogether full and perfect liberty. Indeed, there is no controversy about the
first and the last state, but the second and the third must be diligently
considered, in order that they may not be confused but carefully
distinguished.

It is a far different thing to speak of the powers or faculties of the mind,

will, and heart of man before conversion, before he has begun to be healed
and renewed through the Holy Spirit, than when once he

has begun to be healed and renewed. For then, through the gift and
operation of the Holy Spirit, there

are present and follow new movements in the mind, will, and heart. Also
the healing and renewal itself

is not such a change which is immediately accomplished and finished in a

moment, but it has its beginnings and certain progress by which it grows in
great weakness, is increased and preserved. But it

does not grow as do the lilies of the field, which neither labor nor worry;
but in the exercises of repentance, faith, and obedience, through seeking,
asking, knocking, endeavoring, wrestling, etc., the beginnings of the
spiritual gifts are retained, grow, and are increased, as in Luke 19:13 the
Lord commands with respect to the talents delivered to the servants, that
they be not buried in the ground, but He says: “Trade with these till I
come.” And in this sense Paul uses the very beautiful word

(“rekindle”): “Rekindle the gift of God that is in you” (2 Tim. 1:6). And
because we must begin with the

Word and learn from the Word about the will of God and about the working
of the Spirit, there is no

doubt that, when the Word is read, heard, and pondered and a man
conceives the purpose and the desire
to apply it to himself, when he wrestles with carelessness, lack of faith, and
stubbornness, etc., these are true workings and operations of the Holy
Spirit, even though they may often be so hidden by reason of

great infirmity that the presence and working of the Holy Spirit is not
perceived with any ardent feeling.

There certainly one must judge not from his feeling but from the Word.

I am briefly noting only these things, for I have not planned a lengthy and
complete explanation of

this controversy. But I wanted to say these things in advance, and I may
perhaps have divided them in a

rather clumsy and crude manner. My purpose was that, once all arguments,
both those which are foreign

to our subject and those which are germane to it, had been put in their
proper place and clarified with a

suitable explanation, it might be possible to show more plainly what

essentially and chiefly has been placed into controversy in this dispute
about free will. For how the decrees of the Council of Trent cover up,
confuse, and bury the real issue in this controversy through sophistical
ambiguities we shall show

later; but first we shall briefly dispose of the remaining matters which are
necessary for the explanation.

6 In order that we may finally simply and plainly establish the point at issue
in this controversy, the question is not about the essence of the mind, the
will, and the heart, nor is this the question, that these powers of the soul
have a different mode of acting than those which either act naturally or are
moved

and impelled by violent and brute impulse, as we have explained above.

Neither is the question principally about what reason can teach, nor about
corrupt actions (for these things have been explained

above). But, as we have explained above, the question is about the spiritual
impulses or actions in contrition, faith, and the new obedience, as these are
set before us in the Word of God.

It is certain that the beginning must be made from the Word, which
according to the command of God

man must and also can in a measure hear, read, and ponder. This also is
certain, that conversion and renewal do not occur without some movement
and activity of the mind, the will, and the heart, as we

have said above. But the question is whence man has and receives the
ability, powers, or faculties for

beginning and effecting such movements and actions. This question is

understood more correctly through a comparison. In matters which are
subject to the senses and to reason man has natural powers

in his mind and will, that is, faculties in his nature, inherent and implanted
from his first birth; through these man can, when objects are placed before
him and brought to him, conceive impulses and call forth

actions in harmony with the peculiar nature of his mind and will.

The question therefore is whether in the same manner the mind and the will
have implanted in them,

from the moment of birth, such power, such forces and faculties that when
he reads, hears, or meditates

on the Word of God, he can, without the Holy Spirit, through purely natural
powers (as the Scholastics

say) conceive such impulses and elicit such actions in the mind, will, and
heart as the Scripture demands

for contrition, faith, and the new obedience.

7 So, indeed, Pelagius at one time both held and taught. But the papalists
insist that they are not at all of this opinion. And the same also my friend
Andrada testifies at length, but his memory must be very

slippery. For in the beginning of his fourth book he has completely

forgotten what he had in many pages

at great length argued at the end of the third book, namely, that the
philosophers had, without the Word

of God, and without the Spirit of regeneration, through natural knowledge

and powers, arrived at the true faith and righteousness, by which they were
saved, with only that help of God added of which Cicero also says that no
outstanding virtue has been among the heathen without divine inspiration.
By

how much these things differ from genuine Pelagianism even the blind see;
for Pelagius did not exclude

the heroic impulses and such inspirations as the philosophers understand.

But we shall store that Andradian discussion securely in our mind, that we
may know that when the papalists condemn

Pelagianism, this is done not seriously but only pro forma (as the saying is).
For I think they will not dare to condemn the statement of Andrada that the
philosophers had true faith, Pauline righteousness,

and eternal life without the Word of God and without the Spirit of
regeneration. For Andrada wrote this

at the Council of Trent.

However, let us hear with what plausible words, prepared to deceive, they
attempt to separate themselves from the Pelagians. They say that they by no
means think that free will suffices for beginning and effecting spiritual
actions, but they extol the necessity of the grace of God and of divine
assistance so greatly that we could not even desire and want any perfect
good without it.

They say that through the contagion of sin human nature is so enervated and
debilitated that it cannot

even reflect upon any of those good things which lead to eternal bliss unless
it is raised up and strengthened by the power and strength of the divine
Spirit. These are the words of the Jesuits and of

Andrada.

Also the third canon of the sixth session pronounces the anathema on those
who think that a man can,

without the prevenient inspiration and assistance of the Holy Spirit, repent,
believe, love, or hope as he ought, etc. The words are certainly beautiful
and very splendid, because they appear to ascribe everything to the grace of
God, and if this were so, there would no longer be any controversy between

us about this subject. However, they themselves bear witness and proclaim
loudly that they in no way

approve of the statement and teaching of the Augsburg Confession about

free will, but that those loud

anathemas at the Synod of Trent were let out in order to condemn it.

You see, dear reader, with what zeal, in how many ways, and how
deceitfully this controversy is obscured, in order that the real point at issue
may not be noticed. And this is done through words that

are so plausible, that those who are inexperienced in controversies, if they

are not warned, think there is no danger.

SECTION II

The Opinion of the Council of Trent Concerning Free Will, According

to the
Interpretation of Andrada

1 What, then, will be the point at issue in the controversy between us and
the papalists; or in what does the difference between our understanding and
that of the Tridentine Council about free will consist?

I answer: That could indeed be gathered clearly from the decrees of the
council. However, lest they

complain loudly that we do violence to their words and by chicanery

interpret them differently than the

synod perhaps meant them, let us hear the interpretation of Andrada, which
he freely, without any dissimulation, communicates to us in his writing as
he without doubt learned it at the Council of Trent

itself. He explains the opinion, both the synod’s and his own, thus: That free
will, without the inspiration and assistance of the Spirit cannot indeed bring
about spiritual actions but that this does not happen for this reason, that the
mind and will, such as it is in man from the very moment of birth, does

not before his conversion have any strength, any powers or faculties
whatever which are necessary for

beginning and effecting spiritual actions, but because these natural powers
and faculties, although they

have neither been destroyed nor extinguished, have been so entangled in the
snares of sins that man cannot extricate himself from them by his own
strength. And that the meaning may be plainer, he illustrates it by this
comparison: “As he who is bound with iron shackles has indeed the
implanted and

inborn power of walking; but although he has it, yet he cannot use it
actually to walk out, unless the fetters which hinder and retard movement
are first broken.”
From this comparison the reader understands clearly, without any
ambiguity, what the understanding

of the Tridentine Council is when it says that free will freely assents and
cooperates with the inciting and assisting grace of God. For they are of the
opinion that in the mind and will of the unregenerate man

there are still from the moment of his birth in this corruption some naturally
implanted powers, or some

kind of faculties, for divine things or spiritual actions but that the movement
and use of those faculties and powers is repressed and retarded through sin
in the unregenerate. So they are of the opinion that the

grace of God and the working of the Spirit do not simply effect and work in
those who are born again

some new power, strength, faculty, or ability of beginning and performing

spiritual impulses and action

which before conversion and renewal they did not have from the powers of
nature, but that they only

break the fetters and are set free from the snares so that the natural faculty,
previously bound, restrained, and hindered, can now, incited through grace,
exercise its powers in spiritual matters. They think that

these natural powers, if they are too feeble in anyone, are assisted and
strengthened by the grace and help of the Holy Spirit. And where they do
not suffice, they say that a new ability is infused which brings with it regard
for merit.

Andrada explains his opinion by comparison with a sick person whose

powers have been broken, weakened, and lessened by illness, where the
physician strengthens and invigorates the powers which

still remain even though they are lessened and, if any have been lost,
restores them. Others employ the
example of a small bird which has and retains the power and ability to fly
but when bound with a string

is not able to exercise the use and operation of that faculty which is
naturally implanted in it; but if someone breaks the string, he does not
implant in the bird a new and special power of flying which it

did not have before, but he only takes away what hindered it.

Later, where Andrada argues that grace together with the powers of free
will have the nature of the

efficient cause of those things which belong to conversion, he uses this

comparison: “If I ask you, when

you perceive wooden material burning, what is the efficient cause of that
burning; you may say that fire

is necessary together with God, the Creator and Protector of nature, who
gives to fire the power to burn

and agrees to work together with it. Since, therefore, the movement of our
free will depends to no greater extent on the grace of God than the burning
of a log depends on divine power, why is it that you

rob free will of the dignity and name of efficient cause?” Let the reader
consider well this comparison of Andrada.

2 It is therefore the understanding of the council that in the nature of man

depraved by sin, before it is restored through the grace and operation of the
Spirit, there still remains some power, strength, efficacy, capacity, or natural
faculty for spiritual movements, or actions; that this is a power partly
fettered and bound through sin, partly weakened and bowed down, so that it
cannot by itself alone, without the grace
of the Spirit, either begin or perform any perfect good; that grace breaks the
fetters and snares, so that this natural faculty, which was before benumbed
but now is stirred up by the grace of God, can exercise

itself in spiritual things; that where free will has been weakened and bowed
down through sin, it is strengthened, invigorated, and assisted by the help of
the Spirit; but where this does not suffice, they think that new qualities or
abilities are infused and that so in spiritual impulses and actions grace and

the natural powers of free will combine to become one efficient cause, so
that for beginning and performing spiritual impulses these two, grace and
the natural powers of free will, such as they are from

the moment of corrupted birth, join forces. For the matter of the benefits of
the renewal in the regenerate will, namely, that they make the regenerate

(“co-workers”) of God, is another

question, about which we shall speak later.

Therefore we know now from the interpretation of Andrada what the

meaning of the council is in the

sixth session, ch. VI, canon 4. And I, in the name of us all, express thanks
to Andrada, because when the

others were strangely reluctant, he without ambiguity and dissimulation so

openly and clearly sets down

and explains the real issue of the controversy which is between the papalists
and us concerning free will. For with the issue so stated, the explanation
and refutation is clear, if only they see fit to grant us this indulgence, that
this controversy may be decided and terminated according to the
testimonies of the

Scripture. But that our argument may be brief, I shall distribute the
testimonies over a number of points.

SECTION III
The Teaching of Scripture Concerning Free Will

1 First, it must be said that some testimonies of Scripture speak, so to say,

negatively, namely, that through the Fall there has been totally lost in the
corrupted nature the power and ability, or faculty, by which spiritual actions
must be begun and performed as they ought. And the testimonies of
Scripture speak distinctly, some about the mind and some about the will or
heart of the unregenerate man. The unregenerate are called “darkness” in
Eph. 5:8; John 1:5; 3:19; Acts 26:18. They are called not only sick

or infirm but “dead in sins” in Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13. And these things are
clearly explained of the loss or lack of the power or faculty for spiritual
impulses and actions in 1 Cor. 2:14: “The unspiritual man

does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, … and he is not able to
understand them because they are

spiritually discerned”; 2 Cor. 3:5: “We are not sufficient of ourselves to

claim anything as coming from

us; our sufficiency is from God”; 1 Cor. 1:21: “The world did not know
God through wisdom”; Matt.

11:27: “No one knows the Father … except he to whom the Son chooses to
reveal Him”; Matt. 16:17:

“Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you”; Rom. 1:21: “They became
futile in their thinking”; 1

Cor. 1:20: “God made foolish the wisdom of the world”; Rom. 7:18: “I
know that nothing good dwells

within me, that is, in my flesh”; Rom. 8:7: “The mind that is set on the flesh
does not submit to God’s

law, indeed it cannot”; John 15:5, 4: “Apart from Me you can do nothing, as
the branch, unless it abides
in the vine.” We are by nature wild olive trees (Rom. 11:17 ff.), and for that
reason must be grafted into the True Vine, outside of which we can do
nothing.

Augustine diligently weighs these words: “For He did not say: ‘Without Me
you can do it with difficulty’; nor did He say, ‘You cannot perform or
furnish something great.’ But He simply says:

‘Without Me you can do nothing,’ namely, in spiritual actions, for it is clear

that He is here speaking of them.” 1 Cor. 4:7 reads: “What have you that
you did not receive?” Augustine in De praedesdnatione

sanctorum shows at length against the Pelagians that this statement does not
speak about remnants of the natural gifts which still remain in this
corrupted nature but about those things which are given in the renewal
through the Holy Spirit. John 6:44 says: “No one can come to Me unless the
Father … draws

him.” These testimonies show very clearly that unregenerate nature has in
itself and of itself no strength, power, or faculty whatever which it may
contribute of itself in order that it may cooperate with grace to some extent
through its own powers, to begin and to effect spiritual actions. For there is
taken

away from the unregenerate nature the power to think, to will, to be able,
and to do, so far as spiritual

actions are concerned.

2 Second, many testimonies of Scripture speak not only about the defect,
but show that in place of the lost powers there has entered an evil condition
and a sad corruption in the mind, will, and heart, so far

as spiritual impulses and actions are concerned; for before conversion, or

renewal, it is called “a hard

heart” (Rom. 2:5); a “stony heart” (Ezek. 11:19; 36:26); “iron neck, brass
forehead, and iron sinew” (Is.
48:4); a “heart deceitful above all things” (Jer. 17:9); As the Ethiopian is
not able “to change his skin or the leopard his spots” (Jer. 13:23); “the Law
is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. … Evil lies near me. … But I
see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making
me captive to

the law of sin. … With my flesh I serve the law of sin” (Rom. 7:14–25);
“The wisdom of the flesh is

enmity against God” (Rom. 8:7); “The imagination of the human heart is
only evil from youth” (Gen.

6:5, and 8:21); “You brood of vipers! How can you speak good when you
are evil?” (Matt. 12:34);

Spiritual things are foolishness to the unspiritual man (1 Cor. 2; 14);

“Everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34).

3 Third, the testimonies of Scripture which describe the liberation from the
slavery of sin, healing, illumination, restoration, renewal of the mind and
will, do not speak so coldly and perfunctorily, as when someone sets a man
free from his fetters who has in himself the power to walk. But we read in

Ezek. 11:19, and 36:26: “I will take away the stony heart and will give you
a new heart”; John 1:5: “The

darkness did not comprehend the light”; 2 Cor. 4:6: “It is the God who said,
‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ who has shone in our hearts to give the
light of the knowledge of the glory of God”; Deut.

29:2–4: “You have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of
Egypt, … but to this day the

Lord has not given you a mind to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear”;
Matt. 13:11: “To you it has

been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven,” the others
“seeing do not see”; 1 Cor. 12:3:
“No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit”; Ps. 51:10:
“Create in me a clean heart, O

God, and put a new and right spirit within me”; Matt. 16:17: “Flesh and
blood has not revealed this to

you, but my Father, etc.”; John 1:12: “He gave them power to become
children of God; who were born,

not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God”;
John 6:44: “No one can

come to me unless the Father … draws him”; Eph. 2:10: “We are His
workmanship, created in Christ

Jesus for good works”; Phil. 1:6: “He who began a good work in you will
bring it to completion”; Phil.

2:13: “God is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good
pleasure”; 2 Cor. 3:5: “Not that we

are sufficient of ourselves … our sufficiency is from God”; James 1:17:

“Every good endowment and

every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights”;
Luke 24:45: “He opened their

minds to understand the Scriptures”; Acts 16:14: “The Lord opened Lydia’s
heart.” The prayers for spiritual gifts prove the same in Ps. 119; Eph. 1:15–
19; Col. 1:9–10. So also what is said concerning faith in Eph. 2:8: “By
grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it
is the

gift of God — not because of works, lest any man should boast.” Lombard
says, Bk. 2, distinction 27,

that this statement is explained by holy men to this effect, that “faith is not
from the power of our nature, because it is purely a gift of God.” These are
his precise words.
4 From these and many other testimonies of Scripture it is quite clear that
the grace of God does not find in the unregenerate, before their conversion
or renewal, any power or faculty, either bound or weakened, which pertains
to spiritual impulses or actions but that it finds: (1) want of ability, loss,
defects, and lack; (2) an evil quality and corruption in mind, will, and heart,
so far as beginning and performing true spiritual actions is concerned; (3)
that grace does not work in such a way in conversion

or renewal, as if some faculty for spiritual things remained in this corrupted

nature, implanted and inherent from the moment of man’s birth, which is,
indeed, so fettered and diminished through the snares of sin that, unless it is
aroused and strengthened through the grace of God, it cannot proceed to

the deed, but that, when the inciting and assisting grace is added to it, then
that natural power progresses to an effectual action, so that it can receive
spiritual impulses and call forth spiritual actions. Thus the papalists think
and teach. However, Scripture does not thus but in a far different manner
describe the benefit of the Son of God, who by the ministry of the Word
through the Holy Spirit frees us from the

slavery of sin and heals and renews our nature which has been corrupted
through sin. For it teaches that

the Holy Spirit, in those whom He wishes to convert, first begins to mortify
and to take away that corruption which He finds, so far as spiritual impulses
and actions are concerned, in the unregenerate

mind and will; then He begins to work and to bestow a new strength,
ability, and efficacy in mind, will,

and heart for beginning and performing spiritual actions.

5 Let also the weight of the words be considered which the Scripture uses in
descriptions of this kind.

The heart is “slow” (Luke 24:25), “vain” (Ps. 5:9; Eph. 4:17), “hard” (Rom.
2:5), “stony” (Ezek. 36:26);
this heart the Lord “softens” (2 Chron. 34:27 ff.), “opens” (Acts 16:14),
“converts” (Luke 1:16–17),

“circumcises” (Deut. 30:6), “makes it contrite” (Is. 57:15; Ps. 51:17), “takes
away the stony heart”

(Ezek. 36:26); “our outer nature is wasting away” (2 Cor. 4:16); the old man
is “crucified” (Gal. 5:24)

“that the sinful body might be destroyed” (Rom. 6:6); He heals the soul (Ps.
41:4), quickens from the

dead (Eph. 5:15), vivifies those who are dead in sin (Eph. 2:1, 5), gives a
new heart (Ezek. 11:19); “Be

renewed in the spirit of your mind” (Eph. 4:23); the inner nature is being
renewed (2 Cor. 4:16). It is

called “regeneration” (Titus 3:5), a new birth (John 3:3, 5). He “creates a
clean heart” (Ps. 51:10),

“created in Christ Jesus for good works” (Eph. 2:10); the new man is
“created after the likeness of God”

(Eph. 4:24).

6 If these and similar testimonies of Scripture are compared with the

illustrations with which Andrada explains his and the council’s opinion, the
reader will see more clearly than the noonday light that the

controversy about the natural free will in matters pertaining to salvation was
at the Council of Trent not referred to the prophetic and apostolic fountains
but that an opinion was taught there which differs from
the Scripture, yes, which openly conflicts with many very clear testimonies
of the Scripture, as our collation and examination shows. But Andrada, I
see, learned in the Council of Trent to declaim pompously about these most
weighty points of the heavenly doctrine, but in such a way that he not even

once makes mention of these and similar testimonies of Scripture, which

are so numerous and so clear.

This debate is therefore not an idle but a most necessary one, in order that
the true teaching of the Scripture may be retained; which is indeed very
clear, if the other questions, either foreign or related,

have been put into their proper place by a suitable explanation and the point
at issue in the controversy

is established without ambiguity, simply and plainly. For the Scripture

teaches that human nature, as it

has been corrupted through sin and before it is renewed by the Holy Spirit,
has indeed in those things

which are subject to the senses and to reason some natural powers or
faculties in the mind and in the

will by which it can in some way conceive impulses and call forth actions
agreeing with the peculiar nature of the mind and of the will, as has been
said above.

7 However, with respect to beginning and performing spiritual impulses or

actions in the manner spoken of above, Scripture affirms that there is not
implanted any

(“strength, power, or ability”)

in the mind and will of unregenerate man naturally from the moment of his
birth but that, because Adam

lost those gifts through sin,

(“lack of power”) is now propagated in all men who are born from

unclean seed; further that there is now connected with this defect and lack
of strength in this corruption of nature a contrary perverseness and
inclination, but that the Holy Spirit so heals and renews our corrupted
nature that He begins to mortify this perverseness and in place of the
defects works in the mind and will a new strength, power, or ability, whence
follow spiritual impulses and actions, that is, He works to will, to be able,
and to do.

These gifts the Holy Spirit works through the means, or instrument, of the
Word, if it is read, heard,

and pondered, which a person both should and can do in some measure. He
does not infuse these qualities in the way a liquid is poured into a jar but in
such a way that the impulses and actions follow in the mind and will. When
therefore the Holy Spirit begins to heal man’s nature through the Word and
some spark of spiritual power and faculty has been kindled, although the
renewal is not at once perfect

and complete but only begun in great infirmity, then, nevertheless, neither
the mind nor the will is idle, but they have certain new impulses, which also
they must exercise through meditating, praying, endeavoring, wrestling, etc.
However, this spiritual efficacy, these spiritual impulses, no matter how
slight, do not arise and are not born either wholly or in part from natural
powers which the mind and the

will possess from the moment of birth; but they are gifts, operations, and
effects of the Holy Spirit in us.

And for the first effecting of spiritual power and capability for spiritual
actions in us the mind and will confer nothing effectively out of their own
natural powers. For these statements must be retained in their simple
meaning: “Not by ourselves, as from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from
God”; “Without

me you can do nothing”; “What have you that you did not receive?” But
when some spark of that power
has been kindled in us through the Spirit, then mind and will in man does
something in spiritual matters.

But the question is whence it comes that it both wills and is able to do
something. This comes from the Holy Spirit of renewal, who works both to
will and to do, from whom is the ability to think those things

which are salutary.

The very wrestling of the flesh and of the Spirit, of the old and of the new
man, in the regenerate, clearly shows the difference between the actions
which have the Holy Spirit for their Author and Giver

and those which arise or are born of the natural powers of the free will so
far as spiritual things are concerned.

8 Therefore the true and useful distinction of Augustine between grace

working and grace cooperating must by all means be retained in the church.
He says in De gratia et libero arbitrio, ch. 17:

“Who is it that has begun to give love, though it be but little, except He who
prepares the will and by

cooperating completes what He begins by working it? Therefore He

Himself in the beginning works in

us that we will and cooperates with the willing to completion, Phil. 1. That,
therefore, we may will, He

works without us; but once we will, and will in such a way that we may do,
He cooperates with us.

Nevertheless, without Him, either working that we may will or cooperating

when we will, we can do nothing toward the good works of piety.” In De
correptione et gratia, ch. 2, he says: “Let not therefore those deceive
themselves who say: ‘Why is it preached and commanded to us that we
should avoid evil
and do good, if it is not we who do it but God works this in us, that we will
and do?’ But they should

rather understand, if they are children of God, that they are moved by the
Spirit of God so that they do

what should be done, and, when they have done it, they should give thanks
to Him, by whom they were

moved to act, for they are moved in order that they may act, not that they
themselves may do nothing.”

In De gratia et libero arbitrio, ch. 16: “It is certain that it is we who will,
when we will; but it is He who makes it that we will, of whom it is said: ‘It
is God who is at work in you to will.’ … It is certain that it is we who work
when we work; but it is He who works it that we work by giving to the will
the most

efficacious powers, who has said: ‘I work it that you work.’ What else is
this except: ‘I will take away

from you the stony heart, by reason of which you were doing nothing; and I
will give you a heart of flesh, by reason of which you will work,’ etc.?”

In De dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis, he says ch. 32: “God works in us that we

may will and do; He does not permit those things to be idle in us which He
has given us to be exercised, not to be neglected, in

order that we also may be co-workers of the grace of God; but if it should
appear to us that something in

us is on the decline through our own carelessness, let us with true concern
hasten back to Him who heals all our diseases.”

In De correptione et gratia, ch. 12: “If in the great infirmity of this life, in
which it is nevertheless necessary to perform what is good, it were left to
the will of the regenerate that they could persevere with the help of God if
they willed it, but God did not work it in them that they willed it, their will
would be overcome by weakness in the midst of so many and such great
temptations. … Therefore this

has come to the aid of the infirmity of the human will, that divine grace
works unchangeably and inseparably; and that for this reason, no matter
how weak it is, it should not fail, nor be overcome by any adversity.”

In De dono perseverantiae, ch. 13, we read: “We therefore will, but God
works in us to will. We therefore work, but God works in us that we work
according to His good will. It is profitable for us both

to believe and to say this. This is godly; this is true, that there may be a
humble and submissive confession and that all may be given to God. We
think of this as we believe, we think of it as we speak,

we think of it as we do whatever we do. But in what pertains to the way of

piety and the true worship of

God we are not sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves; but

our sufficiency is from God.” And in ch. 6 he says: “We live more safely if
we give all to God and do not entrust ourselves in

part to Him and in part to ourselves.”

These statements of Augustine I have copied here that I may show that we
do not teach this doctrine

of free will in such a way that slothfulness, security, and haughtiness are
nourished and confirmed in men. For we inculcate this: “See to it that you
do not receive grace in vain.”

9 But we desire that grace be retained in order that the Son of God, our
Physician, may be given the glory due Him, for the greatness of His
benefits can neither be understood nor considered, unless we learn to know
our wretchedness, which we cover with fig leaves but which is revealed by
the Word of
God; and when we have some such gift, that we may not boast about our
own powers but may give thanks to Him who works to will and to do; and
if something is lacking, that we may flee in prayer to

Him; that also we may not from carnal security throw away such great gifts
which we know the Holy

Spirit is working in us but that we may reverently preserve and exercise

them. And in our great infirmity we have this consolation: because not our
powers but the Holy Spirit has begun that good work in us, therefore He
will finish it (Phil. 1:6). Thus this doctrine kindles in us faith, hope, prayer,
thanksgiving, fear of God, and diligence in guarding His divine gifts, which
Augustine for this reason is

accustomed to enumerate as by steps, so that we may be able more rightly

to acknowledge and consider

the grace of God. He enumerates: to be able, to will, to do, to think, to

desire, to seek, to accept. He says also, in De dogmatibus ecclesiasticis, ch.
17: “Holy thinking, a good purpose, a pious plan, and every impulse of
goodwill is from God; therefore we can do something good through Him,
without whom we

can do nothing.”

In the same way Augustine ascribes various names to grace to illustrate the
matter itself and show, as

it were, the steps of conversion. For he calls grace prevenient, preparing,

liberating, working: then, subsequent, cooperating, assisting the good of
perseverance, etc.

SECTION IV

Augustine’s Teaching Concerning Free Will, and How Andrada

Distorts It
1 These things are simple, clear and true, built up out of clear testimonies of
Scripture; and there is no doubt that this is also the constant position of
Augustine. But Andrada tries to befog this light. For Augustine in a
specially written booklet connects grace and free will and says: “Wherever
in the divine

admonitions to do something or not to do it the work of the will is

demanded, there free will is sufficiently demonstrated.” Again: “It is
necessary that our consent come to the grace of God, so that

our good may not be of necessity, but voluntary.” Therefore (says Andrada)
“Some capability for spiritual things, no matter how small, must be
attributed to free will, which is naturally implanted in it from the moment of
birth.”

2 But once the ambiguities are removed, it is not difficult to show what
Augustine wants to say. For what God prescribes to us in His Word, namely,
acknowledging Him, contrition, faith, hope, charity, patience, prayer,
obedience, etc., are things which can neither be begun nor performed
without an impulse and activity of the mind and will. For without the mind
and understanding no one understands,

thinks, or judges anything; without the will no one desires, longs for, seeks,
asks, tries, strives for, etc.

“Many things,” Augustine says, “people do unwillingly; but no one can

believe unless he is willing. To

will, however, is the characteristic mark of the will. This is therefore

beyond all controversy; it is clear through the very evidence of the thing
itself.” But does Augustine conclude from this that the mind and

will of man can perform by itself and of itself what the Word of God
commands? By no means! But he

proves abundantly from Scripture that the mind and will of the unregenerate
man does not naturally have the strength, power, and capability from the
moment of birth to begin and perform spiritual impulses and actions in the
way they are commanded in the Word of God. Nevertheless, because God

did not in vain reveal His Word to the human race, Augustine adds that the
grace of God effects and works in man what nature cannot effect and work.
But grace works conversion nowhere else than in the

mind, will, and heart of man. For with the heart man believes (Rom. 10:10),
from the heart he obeys (Rom. 6:17), with the mind salvation is perceived
(Eph. 1:16–20). But it does not operate in the will of

man in the way stones are rolled and inanimate things are impelled, so that
in spiritual matters the mind

and will of the regenerate are carried along by divine grace, without any
intelligent and voluntary movement of the mind and will.

For the Scripture clearly affirms that the regenerate in spiritual matters
recognize, know, believe, assent, desire, or strive, wrestle, etc., which
beyond controversy are actions of the mind and will.

However, those actions the mind and will can neither begin nor perform
through their own powers. For

this reason grace illumines the mind, converts and changes the will by
bestowing a new power and new

capabilities, so that out of ignorant persons they become knowing ones, out
of unwilling ones they become willing, and so in conversion the mind and
will now begin, through the gift and operation of the

Spirit of renewal, what previously they could not do through natural

powers, namely, to have spiritual

impulses and actions for understanding, thinking, judging, desiring,

endeavoring, wrestling, willing, doing, etc.

3 That this is Augustine’s opinion is certain. For he says in De peccatorum

meritis, Bk. 2, ch. 5: “We must not operate with prayers only, as though the
power of our will should not be taken into account for

good living; because God does not work our salvation in us as in irrational
stones or as in beings into

whose nature He has not placed reason and will.”

This he explains in the following chapter; for he connects grace and free
will. But he soon adds:

“That also free will itself belongs to God’s grace, that is, to the gift of God,
I do not doubt; not only that it may be there, but also that it may be good,
that is, that it may be converted to do the commands of the Lord.” The
reader sees that Augustine is speaking not of the unregenerate will but of
that which is already converted and has begun to become good. And in
Hypognosticon, Bk. 3, he says: “Let no one

trust in grace in such a way, as if God did not require works from that free
will which He has restored

through the death of His Son, rather, let him watch, ask, seek, knock, etc.”
So also in De gratia et libero arbitrio, ch. 2: “When he works something
according to God, let him not take it away from his own will.” But that no
one may think that he speaks about the proper, that is, the natural powers of
the will, he says, ch. 16: “It is certain that it is we who will and do when we
will and do; however, He works to

will and do by giving to the will the most efficacious powers about which it
is written: ‘God works in us

both to will and to do.’”

And in De praedestinatione sanctorum, ch. 3, he confesses that it was an

error if he had somewhere said that it is our own doing, to us and from us,
that we agree when the Gospel is preached. And later he

adds that when he had said: “It is for us to believe and to will,” this must be
understood that it belongs both to God, who prepares the will, and also to
us, because it cannot happen unless we are willing. This

he explains as follows, Ad Bonijacium, Bk. 1, ch. 19: “Christ does not say,
‘He will lead,’ so that there we may somehow understand that the will
precedes; but He says, ‘He will draw.’ But who is drawn, if

he was already willing? And yet no one comes unless he is willing.

Therefore he is drawn in wonderful

ways to will by Him who knows how to work within the very hearts of
men; not that men (which cannot

happen) may believe unwillingly, but that willing persons are made out of
unwilling ones.” In Enchiridion, ch. 32, he says: “He anticipates the
unwilling that he may will; He follows after the willing lest he will in vain.”
In Contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum, Bk. 4, ch. 6, Pelagius says that
grace assists the good purpose of everyone, but that it does not put zeal for
virtue into him who resists.

Augustine replies: “It could be understood in a good sense if it were not

said by those whose opinion is

known. For it is to one who resists that the approach of the divine call,
namely, the grace of God itself, is first procured, and then, when he no
longer resists, the spirit of virtue is kindled in him.”

Ambrose says in De vocatione gentium, Bk. 2, ch. 9: “That grace is rejected

by many is a result of their wickedness; but that it is received by many is
both of divine grace and of the human will. For no

kind of virtue will be met with which may be had either without the gift of
divine grace or without the

consent of our will.” But hear how he explains this. “For grace itself does
this in every kind of healing

and helping, that in him whom it calls it prepares the will as the best
possible receiver of itself and handmaid of its gifts.” And in Bk. 1, ch. 9 he
says: “Though man naturally has the power not to want

the good, nevertheless, he does not have the power to want the good unless
it is given him. Nature has

contracted the former through guilt; the latter it receives through grace.”
And this is what Augustine says: “Through grace the human will is not
taken away, but the evil will is changed into a good one; and

when it has been made good it is aided.”

This is also the intention of the statement of Prosper: “Free will, naturally
imparted to man, remains

in his nature, but changed with respect to quality and condition through
Christ, the Mediator, who turns

away the will from that which it perversely wanted and turns it to want that
which would be good for

it.”

These explanations show most clearly that Augustine does not ascribe to the
will any power or capability for spiritual actions which man has naturally
from the moment of birth but only that which he

has received from the gift and working of the Spirit of renewal.

4 The papalists turn this around to make it sound as if grace only moved
and excited, while the will had of itself the ability to consent. But we have
already shown that Augustine clearly held otherwise. It

is profitable for the reader to consider with what bad faith the writings of
the fathers are treated by the papalists. Augustine says: “To agree and to
disagree is appropriate to the will,” as we say that to understand is
appropriate to the mind and to will is appropriate to the will. That sentence
was later corrupted thus: “To consent in spiritual things is appropriate to the
will, that is, through its own powers.” But it is clear what a great difference
lies between these two statements: “To consent properly
belongs to the will” and “Man’s own will has the power to consent.”

5 Andrada has no other arguments for his opinion except this disputation of
Augustine, to which Augustine gives this title: Concerning Grace and Free
Will. And if Andrada understood the actions of the regenerate will, which it
has and receives not naturally in the moment of birth but in regeneration

through the gift and operation of the Holy Spirit, as Augustine argues, there
would be no controversy

between us. For it is certain that the Holy Spirit does not in conversion
abolish, destroy, or extinguish

the powers of the soul, as they are called in everyday speech; but He heals
and renews them, and He

does that in such a way that He mortifies and takes away the corruption
which clings to them, so that,

when these organs have been renewed and prepared, He can use them for
the impulses and actions of

the new man.

We neither approve nor follow in any way the mad notions of the
Manichaeans, who imagined that

certain people are beyond hope of redemption, that is, their nature is so
corrupted through sin that they

cannot even be converted, reformed, and renewed through the grace and
operation of the Holy Spirit.

For Augustine rightly says, speaking about articles falsely imputed to him,
article 6: “There is this difference between evil men and devils, that there
remains also for very evil men a reconciliation, if God has pity on them; but
for the devils no conversion is reserved.” He says also this correctly against
the Manichaeans, De civitate Dei, Bk. 14, ch. 11, that conversion occurs not
through the removal of the substance of the soul or through the taking away
of any other part of it, but that which had been vitiated and corrupted is
healed and corrected. For it is as he says in Contra Julianum, Bk. 4, ch. 3:
“The grace of God through our Lord Jesus Christ is not bestowed on stones
or on wood or on cattle; for they lack

the necessary endowments, namely, mind and will, in which God is

accustomed to work in His usual way, through the Word and sacraments,
and in which conversion must take place.”

These things are not to be understood, as Pelagius contended, as if before

the grace of conversion, or

renewal, there were in corrupted nature a certain goodness, power,

inclination, aptitude, disposition, capability, or whatever it may be called,
for beginning and performing spiritual actions. For then it could be said that
you have something which you did not receive through the grace of
renewal, or conversion. This Augustine denounces as Pelagian. And in De
gratia Christi, Bk. 1, ch. 18, he quotes and refutes these words of Pelagius:
“We have implanted by God the possibility of going in either direction, or
(to put it that way) a certain fruitful and prolific root which begets and bears
diverse things from the will of man and which can, according to the will of
the particular husbandman, either bloom

with the flowers of virtues or bristle with the thorns of vices.” Thus
Pelagius. But Augustine says, Contra Julianum, Bk. 2, concerning the
statement of Ambrose: “Human nature, also that which is born under sin
and whose beginning is in imperfection, is capable of justification, but
through the grace of

God”; and in Bk.4, ch. 3, he says that “the human substance is capable of
receiving divine gifts, but not

in the same way as a man of good abilities is said to be capable of all

studies, on account of the innate
“natural power,” but through the grace of God, because it is rational nature
in which God through the

Word and the sacraments according to His good will can work to will, so
that the evil will is converted

into a good one.” Thus also Luther speaks, Tome 1, p. 236: “When the
blessed fathers defend free will,

they praise its capacity for freedom, namely, that it can be turned to good by
the grace of God and become free indeed, for which it was created.” And
elsewhere he calls it a passive capability.

Irenaeus, in Bk. 5, says that human flesh is able to receive the gift of God,
that is, of eternal life, because it is nourished with the flesh and blood of
Christ. In Bk. 4, ch. 4, he says that man is fit to

receive the goodness of God and that, when he is eager for God, he always
makes progress toward God.

For neither does God cease to bless and to enrich, nor does man cease to
accept the blessing and to be

enriched by God.

Beautiful is also the statement, of either Ambrose or Prosper, in De

vocatione gentium, Bk. 2, ch. 9:

“Grace itself, by every manner of healing and helping, accomplishes this,

that in him whom it calls it

prepares the will as the best receiver for itself and handmaid of its gifts.”
But that these things must be diligently distinguished and explained the
Scripture admonishes and shows by its own example. For it

uses the word

(“to receive”) when it says that the Word and grace of God must be
accepted

(Acts 8:14; James 1:21; 2 Cor. 6:1). Whence man may have this capability
it shows both negatively and

positively. For “the unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit
of God” (1 Cor. 2:14). Truly, it is God who works both that we will and that
we are able to lay hold of the Word and grace of God. In

other cases the word of Christ in John 8:37 applies: “My word finds no
place in you,” that is, in which it might be received. These things must be
clearly and carefully explained. For as Pelagius abused the ambiguity of the
term “possibility,” so he does also in the case of the term “capacity,” De
gratia Christi et de peccato originali, Bk. 1, ch. 13.

Also Justin, in his Apologia Prima, does not speak circumspectly enough
where he explains the statement that the race of angels and of men is
capable of receiving virtue and wickedness, as follows:

“For it would not be worthy of praise if it did not have ‘the power to turn
both ways.’” He understands a

capacity, power, strength, natural faculty, or ability by which a man can turn
himself equally either to

evil or to good. What Augustine judges concerning this opinion is well

known.

These are the chief arguments of Andrada; rightly explained, they do not
support the opinion which

he has undertaken to defend, as is manifest when all these arguments are

related to the real point of the

controversy, which we have set forth above. The remaining arguments

which are usually urged he touches only in passing. Their explanation is
clear and easy if that distinction is employed which is true and necessary,
namely, first, that certain statements of Scripture speak of the liberty of the
uncorrupted nature before the Fall. Second, some speak of the substance of
the mind and will. Third, some speak of

whatever liberty the will still has in those things which are subject to the
senses or to reason. Fourth, some speak of the part of the will in wicked
actions. Fifth, some speak of the will which has begun to be

renewed and set free. For when God works to will, then we will. And the
regenerate have the power of

beginning and effecting spiritual actions. However, free will has no such
power unless it is given from

above through the Spirit of renewal, as Augustine says in Contra duas

epistolas Pelagianorum, Bk. 1, ch. 3. Sixth, in many statements of Scripture
something is prescribed and commanded to the mind and

will of man, but if he does not have the power to obey, it could appear that
God is mocking at our calamity, as if a master should command many
things to a servant of whom he knows that he is unable

to walk because of dislocated feet and as if he should threaten him with

extreme measures unless he obeys, or as if someone should say to a blind
person: “If only you were willing to see, you would find a

treasure.”

But Augustine replies in De gratia et libero arbitrio, ch. 16: “The Pelagians
believe they know something great when they say: ‘God would not
command what He knew could not be done by man.’

Who would not know this? However, He commands some things which we
cannot do in order that we

may know what we ought to ask from Him. For from the commanding and
prohibiting Law there is not
knowledge of our strength and power but knowledge of sin, that is, of
‘powerlessness’ and corruption.

And yet He does not command in vain; for grace is promised, which works
that we may will and do.”

Augustine says in the same place: “Let us remember that the same One who
says ‘Make for yourselves

a new heart and new spirit’ also says ‘I will give you a new heart, and a
new spirit will I give you.’ How can He say ‘Make for yourselves’ and then
say ‘I will give you’? Why does He command if He Himself

will give it? Why does He give if man will do it, except because He gives
what He commands and

assists, that he whom He commands may do it? For it is through grace that
a man who previously was of an evil will becomes a man of good will;
through grace it also happens that the good will, once it has

begun to exist, is increased, etc.” In Contra duas epistolas Pelagianorum,

Bk. 2, ch. 10 he says: “I do not see anything in the Holy Scriptures that is
commanded by God in order to demonstrate free will which is not found
either to be given by His goodness or demanded for the purpose of
demonstrating

the assistance of grace.”

In the seventh place, it is objected that there are in Scripture many

admonitions, exhortations, reproofs, etc. These indeed appear idle, useless,
and not necessary, if there is not in man some natural

capability to begin and perform spiritual actions. Augustine replies: “O

man, recognize in the command

what you ought to have; in the reproof recognize that through your own
fault you do not have it; in prayer acknowledge that you receive what you
wish to have. And the admonishing, exhorting, rebuking
word is the means or instrument through which the Holy Spirit converts the
will, renews, etc.”

Therefore the rebukes of the unregenerate also are not idle. But in the
regenerate the beginnings of the

gifts which they have received from the Holy Spirit are stirred up,
preserved, and increased through the

admonitions and reproofs, lest they be squandered, but that they may grow
and be increased. These explanations are true, simple, and plain; neither
were they first thought out by us, but they have been

handed down by the ancients, especially by Augustine.

SECTION V

How Deceitfully the Tridentine Decrees Concerning Free Will Are

Fashioned

1 Now that I have explained these things, I shall briefly show the reader
how deceitfully the canons of the council play with mere equivocations.
From this one can gather of what sort the zeal for the truth

was at the council, when they bring in the darkness of ambiguities in order
that the truth, which is clear per se, should not be able to emerge. In the
fifth canon they anathematize those who think that the free

will of man was lost and extinguished after the sin of Adam, but they do not
explain what they understood by the term free will. For if the essence itself
of the mind and the will is understood, or freedom in external matters or in
evil actions, it is clear that free will is not altogether extinct and lost.

But if one understands the capacity, power, or ability to begin and perform
spiritual actions, or a freedom which has equal power for evil and for good
things, we have already shown above what can be

replied correctly on the basis of testimonies of Scripture. And although the

ambiguities are so varied, the reverend fathers nevertheless demand under
the threat of the anathema that we confess without distinction as to kind that
man has after the Fall retained free will. But they are not fighting
particularly about the substance of the mind and will nor about freedom for
discipline in external matters nor about

the part played by the will in evil actions. Therefore, so as far as we are
concerned, they would have no

cause to hurl the lightning of the anathema. But the contention is about the
natural capacity, power, and

ability for spiritual actions. But that question they are afraid to set forth in
so many words, since the testimonies of the Scripture are all too clear. They
therefore use the device of ambiguity and ask whether free will is entirely
extinct and lost through sin. Thus in ch. 1, where they speak concerning the
power of nature in the heathen, they add: “Although free will had by no
means been extinguished in them, yet it was weakened in its powers and
bent down.” If they understood these words about the external discipline of
reason, there would be no controversy between us. However, what they
really want to maintain is this, that the natural powers of free will for
beginning and performing spiritual actions, although they have been
weakened and bent down, have nevertheless by no means become extinct
either in the heathen or in the unregenerate Jews.

2 This playing with the ambiguity of the term “free will” is not a new game.
For the Pelagians also played it a long time ago. And let the reader observe
how Augustine replies to these equivocations. In

Ad Bonifacium, Bk. 1, ch. 3, he says: “That will will not be free in a good
thing which the Liberator has not set free. However, with respect to evil he
has a free will.” In the same place he says: “This will which is free in evil
things because it delights in evil things is not therefore free in good things,
because it has not been set free.” In De gratia, ch. 15, he says: “We always
have a free will, but it is not always good. For either it is free from
righteousness, when it serves sin, and then it is evil; or it is free from sin,
when it serves righteousness, and then it is good. But this happens through
grace that a man has a good
will who previously had an evil will.” In De correptione et gratia, ch. 1, he
says: “It must be confessed that we have a free will, both to do evil and to
do good. However, in doing evil, everyone is free from

righteousness and a servant of sin; but no one can be free with respect to the
good unless he has been set free (John 8).”

When the Pelagians urged arguments taken from the term free will as not
lost, Augustine opposed them with other terms taken from the Scripture. In
Ad Bonifacium, Bk. 3, ch. 8, he says: “Free will, having been taken captive,
has power for nothing except to sin, but unless it is divinely set free and

aided, it has no power for righteousness.”

In De verbis apostoli, sermon 11, he says: “For doing evil you have a free
will without God’s assistance, although it really is not free; for by whom
one is vanquished, to him he is assigned as a slave.”

In Contra Julianum, Bk. 2, he says: “Here you want a man to be perfected,

and would to God that you desired this by the gift of God and not by the
free, or rather, enslaved, will of his own wish.” 68 In Letter No. 105, Ad
Vitalem “We lost our free will to love God by the greatness of the first sin.”
In Enchiridion, ch. 30: “Man, by using free will in an evil manner,
destroyed both himself and it. For even as he who kills himself, certainly
kills himself while living; so, when sin is committed with a free will, sin is
the victor, and the freedom of the will has been lost. For by whom anyone is
vanquished, to him

he is also assigned as a slave.” Since this opinion is true, what kind of

liberty, I ask, can a bound slave have, unless he finds delight in sinning?

In De verbis apostoli, sermon 2, he says: “It is true, man received great

powers of free will when he was created, but he lost them through sinning.”
In Letter No. 89: “Freedom without grace is nothing but

stubbornness, not liberty. For ‘you will be free indeed if the Son makes you
free.’”
3 I know that the words “weakening,” “lessening,” and “inclining” are
found in the Council of Orange; but there, in those things which pertain to
salvation, all things are taken away from the activity of nature and
attributed to grace. And in canon 13 it is said: “Free will lost cannot be
given back except by Him by whom it could be given.”

But the Council of Trent conceals its deceits under those words, that in the
unregenerate man there

are still remaining some powers for spiritual actions, although very much
weakened and bent down.

Therefore the reader ought to consider how deceitfully they play by means
of the ambiguity of words.

4 Thus when they say: Because it is necessary that a man assent and receive
grace, therefore man himself does not do altogether nothing, we can rightly
reply with Augustine: “It could be understood in

a good sense, if it were not spoken by those whose opinion is known.” For
let there be added that man

has this, that he wills and is able to assent, accept, and act in conversion, or
in spiritual matters, not through his own natural powers, either entirely or in
part, but that he receives it from Him who works

both to will and to do, then there will be no controversy. For it is certain
that we will to assent, accept, act, etc., but God works to will and to do. For
what do you have which you did not receive? Augustine

shows that it is Pelagian to understand this statement of natural gifts.

Although they could easily have

explained these ambiguities with a few words, what shall we consider the
reasons to be why they preferred to play with these generalities, unless it
was in order that, with these actors’ stilts fitted to both feet, they might be
able to bring back into the theater for unwary spectators the ancient fable of
the masters of sentences.
5 But what they seriously try to prove, that a man can dissent and reject the
grace when it is offered, is, sad to say, only too true. For we do not suppose
that grace is so thrust upon the will in conversion

that, no matter whether he is willing or unwilling, he is compelled to have

it, as when a brand is burned

onto the body. But this is what we say, that it is a gift and work of the Holy
Spirit that grace is received with desire, delight, and joy. But that it is
repudiated, rejected, and wasted is the corruption and ill will of our flesh.

6 This also is not said clearly enough, that the free will of man, moved and
incited by God, cooperates by assenting when God incites and calls. For it
is very necessary that Augustine’s distinction

between operating grace and cooperating grace be clearly explained,

namely, whether free will

cooperates with God through its natural powers, so that, when God works in
us to will and assent, some
natural power or efficacy of the old man cooperates to produce that willing
or that assent. Or when grace moves and incites the will, that then the assent
emerges through the natural powers of the will.

Augustine certainly says: “That we will God works without us,” as has been
explained above. But there

is no doubt that once the firstfruits of spiritual gifts have been received, the
regenerate will is a co-worker of God through the capabilities which it has
received from the Spirit of regeneration.

7 Besides, the deceitful equivocation in the word “to assist” must be

observed. Augustine says clearly in De correptione et gratia, ch. 1: “If the
Son has made you free, you will be free indeed. Not in such a way that
when someone has been freed from the condemnation of sin, he no longer
needs the help of his

liberator but rather in this way, that hearing from Him ‘Without Me you can
do nothing,’ he also himself

says to Him, ‘Be Thou my Helper!’”

Again in the Enchiridion he says: “He assists the prepared will of man and
prepares the will that it may be assisted.” But under that word “assist”
Pelagius deceitfully hid his poison. For he says, as quoted by Augustine in
Ad Bonifacium, Bk. 1, ch. 19: “In every good work man is always assisted
by grace.” And in Bk. 4, ch. 6, he says that “grace assists the good purpose
of everyone.” This, Augustine

says, should be received without scruple. But from this Pelagius wove the
following argument: “He who

is assisted himself does and works something together with the one who
assists. The unregenerate will

is assisted by grace. Therefore it contributes something of itself, and

through its natural powers, which it has from the moment of birth, it
cooperates to some extent toward conversion.” But Augustine replies in

Ad Bonifacium, Bk. 3, ch. 4: “At the time of the Old Testament the Holy
Spirit was not only a helper in those who were children according to the
promise (which the Pelagians consider sufficient to establish

their dogma), but we say that He was also the Giver of the power, and this
they deny.” And in Bk. 2, ch.

9, he says: “Subsequent grace indeed assists the good purpose of man; but
there would be no good purpose if grace had not preceded.” Therefore
Augustine asserts the assisting grace only when prevenient grace has
worked to will, without the cooperation of the old man. For then it assists in
order

that we may not will in vain. With this consideration in mind, let the reader
contemplate the Tridentine

decrees, and he will know how generally and deceitfully without an

adequate and necessary distinction

they employ the word “assists.” We are not using tricks to twist their words.
For we have learned from

their interpreter, Andrada, what meaning they have woven under these
coverings of words. For

Andrada, at the Council of Trent itself, publicly defended also the

manifestly Pelagian statements of Cassianus, which I had noted against the
Jesuits, which Prosper earnestly refuted in a proper writing, of

which some were also expressly condemned at the Council of Orange,

namely, “When God sees in us

the beginning of a good will, which He has either Himself planted or sees
that it has emerged through

our own endeavor, He at once illuminates, strengthens, etc.”

Again he says: “It is evident also that through the good of nature, which has
been bestowed through

the beneficence of the Creator, the beginnings of a good will sometimes

spring up.” Again: “It appears

doubtful whether God is merciful to us because we have furnished the

beginning of a good will or whether it is the other way around. For both
must be accepted, that in some grace comes before the will,

in others the will before grace, etc.” Thus Cassianus. But to deceive the
inexperienced reader, Andrada

quotes certain statements of Paphnutius, which are found in the third

collation although he ought to have replied with respect to those which
Prosper refuted out of the 13th collation.

8 They violently attack also Luther’s statement, that man is only passive (
habere se mere passive) with regard to regeneration, renewal, or
conversion. And someone might well be offended by this phrase who is not
accustomed to the ways of speaking which have been customary with the
Scholastic

writers, as if the sense were that the Holy Spirit works conversion in such a
way that no new impulses

whatever follow in the will which has begun to be renewed but that it is
completely idle and inactive

and is only propelled and thrust forward by brute force. This never entered
Luther’s mind. There is no

doubt that the theologians who were present at the Council of Trent
understood very well what that means, mere passive se habere, because
they were brought up in and were accustomed to that way of

speaking which was customary to the Scholastic writers; however, they

were not able to conceal their
eagerness for quibbling, especially because they thought that their [idea]
about the natural powers of the

free will, which, if they cannot do it all, can at least in some part contribute
to renewal or conversion, could in this way easily be forced on men. The
Scholastics are accustomed to dispute as follows: That a

subject which receives some kind of form, quality, character, action, etc.,
insofar as it receives it, behaves passively ( habeat se passive). But there are
certain subjects which, besides behaving passively in receiving, also have a
certain activity in themselves which they contribute and by which they at
the

same time cooperate, in order that the form, quality, action, or character
may be produced in that subject. And such subjects do not conduct
themselves merely passively in the production of the form but partly
passively, partly actively. But there are other subjects which of themselves
have no activity

toward the production of the form but only receive the form. And these are
said to behave merely passively. Because these modes of speaking of the
Scholastics were at that time customary and known,

Luther accommodated them to the doctrine of free will.

Now since the mind and will are the subject in which the Holy Spirit works
conversion or renewal,

the subject, up to this point, according to the mode of speaking of the

Scholastics, behaves passively.

But now the question is: Does the mind and will, such as it is from the
moment of birth, in this corruption of nature through sin, have any activity,
strength, or ability, that is, power, which it contributes and by which it
cooperates with the Holy Spirit in order that a beginning may be made of

conversion, holy meditation, a good purpose, zeal, effort, wrestling, etc., in

spiritual impulses and actions, that is, as the Scholastics say: Does the
unregenerate will behave in part actively with respect to spiritual
conversion and in part passively? Because the Scripture teaches that the
power for spiritual things has been lost through sin, so that the will of itself
can do nothing; and also Augustine does not

want to have the grace by which God works in us to will called

“cooperating,” but “operating,”

therefore Luther, using the phrase of the Scholastics, explained the meaning
in this way, that it only behaves passively. And yet he did not teach that
conversion takes place without thinking of the mind and consent of the will;
but his intention was to teach that God draws those whom he converts
through

their wills, which He Himself has wrought in them through the Holy Spirit,
as Augustine says.

That phrase, therefore, is not unsuitable, provided it is rightly understood.

But once the true understanding about the matters themselves has been
established, we can soon find a way of speaking

by which the matter itself may be explained without ambiguity, properly,

fittingly, and clearly.

9 Does the reader in all these decrees which speak about the free will find
anything except doubtful games played with the many possible meanings of
words? But you say: Surely, the fathers were not called together at Trent to
play, but a serious matter was dealt with. I reply: Through generalities,
ambiguities, and equivocations the truth is more quickly lost and obscured
than it is either found or made clear. What, then, do you think were the
reasons why they wanted to use this artifice in a serious

and important matter, except this, that they did not dare to bring the all too
crude opinions of the Scholastics about free will naked into the theater, lest
they be hooted off at first sight? Because they nevertheless wanted by all
means to retain them, they had to be so disguised under ambiguous
generalities and equivocations that they might in some way again be forced
on the church. Or perhaps
this was done because (as Ruardus Tapperus says) “If grace and free will
agreed, everyone would be free to luxuriate in his own opinion.” You ask:
Will therefore also the Augsburg Confession be permitted freely to hold its
opinion? Far from it! For as we have said under the topic concerning
original sin: Under the papacy everyone may believe what he pleases, but
that understanding only which has been developed on the basis of
testimonies from Scripture is condemned and anathematized.

68 The editions of 1578, 1599, and the Editio Preuss read: Hie vultis
hominem perfici atque vitam Dei dono, etc. The vitam does not make sense.
The edition of 1566 quotes correctly: Hie vultis hominem

perfici: atque utinam Dei dono, etc.

Eighth Topic

CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION

From the Decree of the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent

Chapter II

69

ONCERNING THE DISPENSATION AND MYSTERY

OF THE ADVENT OF CHRIST

From this it came to pass that, when the fullness of that blessed time came,
the heavenly Father, the

Father of mercies and God of all comfort, sent to men His Son Jesus Christ,
announced and promised to

many holy fathers both before the Law and in the time of the Law, that He
might redeem the Jews, who
were under the Law, and that the Gentiles, who did not follow after
righteousness, might apprehend righteousness and that all might receive the
adoption of sons. Him God set forth as the Propitiator through faith in His
blood for our sins, but not only for ours but also for those of the whole
world.

Chapter III

WHO THOSE ARE WHO ARE JUSTIFIED BY CHRIST

Although He died for all, yet not all receive the benefit of His death, but
those only to whom the merit of His suffering is communicated. For as
indeed men would not be born unrighteous if they were

not born through propagation from the seed of Adam, they contract with
and through this propagation,

when they are conceived, their own unrighteousness, so that, unless they
were born again in Christ, they

would never be justified. With that regeneration through the merit of His
suffering, the grace through which they become righteous is bestowed on
them. For this benefit the apostle exhorts us always to give

thanks to the Father who has made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of
the saints in light and has delivered us from the power of darkness and has
translated us into the kingdom of His beloved Son, in

whom we have redemption and remission of sins.

Chapter IV

THERE IS BROUGHT IN A DESCRIPTION OF THE

JUSTIFICATION OF THE UNGODLY AND THE MANNER OF

IT IN THE STATE OF GRACE

With these words a description of the justification of the ungodly is brought

in, that it is a translation from that state in which a man is born a son of the
first Adam, into the state of grace and adoption of the sons of God through
the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation cannot, indeed,
take place after the Gospel has been promulgated without the washing of
regeneration or a desire for it, as it

is written: “Unless a man is born again of the water and the Holy Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Chapter VI

THE MANNER OF PREPARATION

Adults are, however, disposed toward that righteousness when, incited and
assisted by divine grace

and laying hold of faith through hearing, they are freely moved toward God,
believing those things to be

true which have been divinely revealed and promised, and this above all,
that the ungodly is justified by

God through His grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,
and nevertheless, knowing themselves to be sinners, by turning from the
fear of the divine justice, by which they are profitably shaken, to a
consideration of the mercy of God, they are raised to hope, trusting that
God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake, and they begin to love Him
as the fountain of all righteousness.

And therefore they are moved against sin through a certain hatred and
detestation, that is, through that

penitence which must be done before Baptism, and finally they resolve to
receive Baptism, begin a new

life, and keep the divine commandments. Concerning this disposition it is

written: “He who comes to

God must believe that He exists and that He is a rewarder of those who seek
Him”; and: “Be of good
confidence, son, your sins are forgiven you”; and: “The fear of the Lord
drives out sin”; and: “Do penance and be baptized, everyone of you, in the
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins,

and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”; and: “Go therefore and
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I
have commanded you”; and finally: “Prepare your hearts for the Lord.”

Chapter VII

WHAT THE JUSTIFICATON OF THE UNGODLY IS, AND WHAT

ARE ITS CAUSES

This disposition, or preparation, is followed by justification itself, which is

not only the remission of

sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inner man through
voluntary acceptance of grace and

of the gifts by which an unjust person becomes a just one and an enemy
becomes a friend, that he may

be an heir according to the hope of eternal life. The causes of this

justification are these: the final cause is of course the glory of God and of
Christ and life eternal; the efficient cause is the merciful God, who
gratuitously washes and sanctifies, sealing and anointing with the Holy
Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; the meritorius cause,
however, is His most beloved, only-begotten Son, our

Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, because of the exceeding
love with which He loved us,

through His most holy suffering on the tree of the cross merited justification
for us and made satisfaction to God the Father for us; again, the
instrumental cause is the Sacrament of Baptism, which
is the sacrament of faith, without which no one is ever justified; finally, the
single formal cause is the righteousness of God, not that by which He is
Himself righteous but that by which He makes us righteous, or that by
which we, being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind
and are

not only reputed to be, but are truly, called and are righteous, receiving the
righteousness in us, everyone his own, according to the measure which the
Holy Spirit imparts to each one as He wills and

according to each one’s disposition and cooperation. For although no one

can be righteous unless the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ
are communicated to him, yet this takes place in this justification of the
ungodly when through the merit of this most holy passion the love of God
is poured

out by the Holy Spirit into the hearts of those who are justified and inheres
in them. Therefore in that

justification man receives, together with the forgiveness of sins, all these
things infused through Jesus

Christ, in whom he is implanted through faith: hope and love. For faith,
unless hope and charity are added to it, neither unites perfectly with Christ
nor makes one a living member of His body. For this reason it is most truly
said that faith without works is dead and useless, and that “in Christ Jesus
neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith which
works by charity.” This faith the catechumens seek from the church before
the Sacrament of Baptism, in harmony with the apostolic tradition, when
they seek the faith which bestows eternal life, which faith cannot bestow
without hope

and love. Therefore they also at once hear the word of Christ: “If you want
to enter into life, keep the

commandments.” Therefore, when they receive the true Christian

righteousness, they are at once commanded as regenerate persons to
preserve it white and spotless as the first robe, given to them through Christ
Jesus in place of that which Adam by his disobedience lost for himself and
for us, that

they may bring it before the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ and have
eternal life.

Chapter VIII

HOW IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE UNGODLY IS

JUSTIFIED, BY FAITH AND GRATIS

When the apostle says that a man is justified by faith and gratis, these words
are to be understood in

that sense which the perpetual consensus of the Catholic Church has held
and expressed, namely, that

we are said to be justified by faith because faith is the beginning of human

salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is
impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of

His children. But we are said to be justified gratis because none of those
things which precede justification, whether it be faith or works, merit the
grace of justification. “For if it is grace, it is not by works, otherwise [as the
same apostle says] grace is not grace.”

Chapter X

CONCERNING THE GROWTH OF JUSTIFICATION AFTER IT

HAS BEEN RECEIVED

When, therefore, they have been justified and have become friends of God
and members of His household, going from strength to strength, they are
renewed (as the apostle says) from day to day, that

is, through mortifying the members of their flesh and through presenting
them as instruments of justice
for sanctification through the keeping of the commandments of God and of
the church — in that justice,

received through the grace of Christ, when faith cooperates with good
works, they grow and are still further justified, as it is written: “He that is
just, let him be justified still”; and again: “Be not afraid to be justified even
to death”; and again: “You see that by works a man is justified, and not by
faith only.”

This growth of justice holy Church seeks when she prays: “Lord, give us
increase of faith, hope, and charity.”

CANON IX

If anyone says that the ungodly is justified by faith alone in such a way that
he understands that nothing else is required which cooperates toward
obtaining the grace of justification and that it is in no way necessary for him
to be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be
anathema.

CANON X

If anyone says that men are justified without the righteousness of Christ, by
which He has merited for

us to be justified, or that they are formally just through it; let him be
anathema.

CANON XI

If anyone says that a man is justified either solely by the imputation of

Christ’s righteousness or solely by the remission of sins, to the exclusion of
the grace and charity which is poured out into their

hearts by the Holy Spirit and stays with them, or also that the grace by
which we are justified is only the favor of God; let him be anathema.

CANON XII
If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy,
which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this trust alone by which we
are justified, let him be anathema.

CANON XXIV

If anyone says that the received righteousness is not preserved and also not
increased before God through good works but that the works are only the
fruit and signs of the justification obtained, not also a cause of its increase;
let him be anathema.

Examination

1 This is the chief topic in the Christian doctrine. For anxious and terrified
minds which wrestle with sin and with the wrath of God seek this one
haven, how they can have a reconciled and gracious God.

And under temptation faith looks about anxiously for this one consolation,
what it must lay hold of, what it must rely on, lest it be condemned by the
righteous judgment of God on account of sins, but that,

with the wrath of God appeased, the poor sinner may be received into grace
and accepted into life. For

“the end of faith is eternal life” (1 Peter 1:9). Where70 this one topic of
justification is rightly explained and understood as it is revealed in the
doctrine of the Gospel, it affords the necessary and most abundant
consolation to pious consciences and illuminates and amplifies the glory of
the Son of God, our Redeemer and Mediator. On the other hand, if this topic
is adulterated with foreign opinions, it obscures

the glory and the benefits of Christ and robs afflicted consciences of the
necessary consolations which

are set before us in Christ.

2 However, the memory of the tortures of conscience under the papacy is

not yet altogether dead, when the consciences were wrestling in temptation
with sin and with the wrath of God, and were anxiously seeking some firm
and sure consolation. Christ was passed over, who alone suffices us for all

righteousness, and people were directed now to the sanctity of required

works, now to making their own

satisfaction through works that are not required, now to works of

supererogation, and again to the treasure of the merits of the religious
orders, to various brotherhoods, to the pleading of the saints, to pilgrimages,
to the sales of indulgences; and where all did they not lead and drive the
poor consciences!

Finally, when all these things had been done, they left them in the saddest
doubt, setting before them,

alas, the consolation of the fire of purgatory. Even Pighius, although he is

very unfavorable and harsh

toward us, says, nevertheless, concerning the article of justification: “We

cannot hide the fact that this very chief part of the Christian doctrine has
been obscured rather than made clear by men on our side by

very many thorny questions and definitions from the Scholastics.” Such
complaints on the part of many

are found among the papalists themselves.

3 But now this most weighty question was taken under deliberation in the
Council of Trent and was

discussed, as they themselves relate, for seven months. And who would not
hope that since this doctrine

has in our time been most clearly explained on the basis of many very clear
testimonies of Scripture, they would desert the philosophical pits of the
Scholastics, and would approach, if not completely, at least more closely, to
the prophetic and apostolic fountains, especially since the matter was
deliberated
for so many months. But that long deliberation, those frequent assemblies,
and the many debates in the

council concerning the article of justification finally had this outcome, that
that understanding which is found in all the prophets and apostles was
condemned with a liberal outpouring of anathemas, namely,

that a man is justified, that is, received into grace and accepted to life
eternal, solely by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or solely
through the remission of sins, faith laying hold of the mercy of God, which
remits sins for Christ’s sake.

However, the whole swamp and filth of the Scholastic opinions concerning
the inherent new qualities

of righteousness, on account of which a man is restored and is acceptable to

God and received into eternal life through his good works which proceed
from those new qualities, is again foisted on the

church, as though it were the doctrine delivered by the Son of God Himself,
the Sun of Righteousness, and that with the strict command that from now
on no one may dare to believe, preach, or teach otherwise. O unhappy
church, which is not permitted by the Council of Trent to believe, preach or
teach

that happiness of man which is confirmed by the testimony of Moses,

David, and all the prophets, to whom God imputes righteousness without
works, according to the statement: “Happy are those whose

iniquities are forgiven.” (Rom. 4:7)

4 But someone may say: If this was the intent of the fathers of the council,
only to repeat the condemnations of the doctrine of our churches and to
signify that they neither wanted to nor could admit any reformation of their
doctrine from the Word of God, they could have settled the matter with a

few brief words, and there would have been no need of deliberations
continued for so many months.
And some, indeed, suspect that this was done pro forma (as the saying is),
that they might be able to pretend with some show of right that these
decrees concerning justification had been set down not out of

preconceived opinions but out of daily, serious, and mature deliberation on

the basis of Scripture. I, however, gather from the decrees themselves, but
chiefly from my friend Andrada, that the reasons for

this anxious and daily deliberation through so many months were chiefly
two. First: Because the light of

the testimonies of the Scripture (which teach that we are justified, that is,
absolved from our sins, and

received to eternal life not on account of our qualities and virtues but by the
free imputation of the righteousness, obedience, and merit of Christ before
the judgment of God) is so great that it illumines

the little ones, confirms the pious, and also contracts the eyes of the
adversaries, although against their will, with its brightness. Therefore
devices had to be sought by which that light, by throwing before it

some fog or mist, could be so obscured that it might not with such great
clearness strike the eyes of men. And because this had to be done with some
show of right, this business could not be completed in

the deliberation of one month. Secondly: The Scholastics philosophize all

too crassly about man doing

what is in him, about adequate merit ( de merito congrui), about grace

which makes acceptable, about deserving merit ( de merito condigni). And
concerning justification they dispute without the Scripture in no other way
than as if they were philosophizing in the school of Aristotle about natural
impulses. But

since the council wanted to retain that opinion of the Scholastics (it saw,
however, that in spite of the
opposition of the whole kingdom of Antichrist men had, through the
reading of Scripture, already progressed so far that they shrink back from
those profane disputations and teachings, and want to have

all things recalled to the Scripture), it was therefore a matter of great labor
and of daily deliberation, to figure out how the philosophical opinion
concerning justification could be so clothed with certain statements of the
Scriptures that it might not at once be recognized by everyone but that it
might somehow be able to endure the light of our time. That it was chiefly
these things which were done in the

discussion of so many months the decrees themselves show, but most of all
the explanations of Andrada

clearly testify to this, as we shall show.

69 The editions of the Examen here have ministerio. The context calls for
mysterio, and so, indeed, Roman Catholic editions of the passage have it. D.
Giul. Smets, Sacrosancti Oecumenici et Ceneralis Concilii Tridentini
Canones et Decreta (Bielefeld: Velhagen & Klasing, 1858), p. 23.

70 All editions here have ibi, but the context calls for ubi. So also Nigrinus
translated: Wo aber.

SECTION I

ARTICLE I

The True Issue in the Topic Concerning Justification

1 First of all we must speak of the sophistry by which they shrewdly

conceal the true issue of the controversy and in a hateful manner burden our
teaching. It is certain that both the remission of sins and the renewal in
which the Holy Spirit kindles new virtues in those who believe are
blessings of the Son

of God, the Mediator. For Christ by His suffering merited for us not only
the remission of sins but also
this, that on account of His merit the Holy Spirit is given to us, that we may
be renewed in the spirit of our mind. We say, indeed, that these benefits of
the Son of God are connected, so that, when we are reconciled, the Spirit of
renewal is at the same time given. But we do not for this reason confuse but
rather distinguish them, so that we may assign to each its place, order, and
peculiar nature, as we have

learned it from the Scripture, namely, so that reconciliation, or remission of

sins, precedes and the beginning of love, or of the new obedience, follows
after; chiefly, however, that faith may be certain that it has a reconciled God
and remission of sins not because of the renewal, which follows and which

has been begun, but because of the Mediator, the Son of God.

2 From this, however, the papalists weave the calumny that we rend asunder
and mutilate the benefits of the Son of God. For all the Tridentine decrees
concerning justification are so formulated that they indirectly accuse us as if
we taught that the believers have only the forgiveness of sins but that they
are not also renewed by the Holy Spirit; also, that Christ earned for us only
the reconciliation and not also

at the same time the renewal, as if we excluded the renewal, charity, or new
obedience in such a way

that it is neither present nor follows in the reconciled; as if in the regenerate

only the one virtue of faith had to be present, and the presence or following
of the others were simply excluded. But these are only

shameless and slanderous calumnies, by which they raise a noise in order

that inexperienced people may not notice what the controversy is about. For
it has been frequently repeated by our men that we

plainly and clearly teach that it is necessary that there be in the regenerate a
knowledge of the articles of faith, contrition, a good intention, that love
must be begun, and that good works must follow.

3 We also expressly condemn the blasphemy of Simon Magus, who taught

that men who are freely
saved by faith are free to do whatever they want. For he shamefully defined
salvation as liberation from

that servitude by which men are obligated by God’s command to good

actions and are not permitted to

do as they please. These are harsh and truly diabolical gibes with which
Satan wanted to mock the doctrine of the apostles concerning the free
righteousness of faith and concerning Christian liberty and

to make it hateful to good hearts.

We earnestly detest also the blasphemy of Basilides, who taught that we are
saved in such a way alone by grace through faith that any and every action,
and indeed, every passion, could be indiscriminately engaged in.

We condemn also the Gnostics, who said that they were saved by
knowledge alone and that, because

of the excellency of faith, they became so spiritual that it was impossible

for them to fall from grace, no matter what they might perpetrate. We
condemn also what Augustine says, De haeresibus, 54, that Aetius and
Eunomius were to such an extent enemies of good morals that they asserted
that nothing could hurt anyone, no matter what he committed or how he
persevered in sin, if only he were a partaker

of that faith which was taught by them.

This I wanted to repeat here, in order that good men, wherever they are,
may understand that our

churches are unjustly described by these calumnies, as if we rejected the

second benefit of the Son of
God, namely, the renewal of the Spirit, and simply excluded the doctrine of
repentance, of charity, of the new obedience and good works from our
churches. It was necessary also to give this explanation first,

in order that the true issue in this controversy, which has been insidiously
and with great zeal concealed by the men of Trent, could be plainly and
clearly established. For this is by no means the issue, whether

the believers, after they have by faith accepted the remission of sins for
Christ’s sake, should also be renewed in the spirit of their mind; nor is this
the question, whether the renewal also belong to the benefits of Christ; nor
is this the controversy, whether there ought to be in man repentance,
contrition, a good intention, and whether love ought to be begun and good
works ought to follow; for all these things

we plainly and clearly confess, teach, and diligently urge in our churches.
And since these things are so, let the reader reflect in his own mind what
kind of stratagem it is to play in this serious controversy with sophistical
quibbling and to conceal the real issue of the controversy.

4 But someone may say: If matters stand thus, then what is it about which
you contend so sharply concerning the article of justification, so that you
throw almost the whole world into turmoil? Certainly, as you do not deny
the renewal nor simply reject charity, so the papalists do not deny the
remission of

sins, but confess it. And if there is agreement concerning the matters
themselves, there will then be only contentions about words or a war about
grammar. For the papalists understand the word “justify”

according to the manner of the Latin composition as meaning “to make

righteous” through a donated or

infused quality of inherent righteousness, from which works of

righteousness proceed. The Lutherans,

however, accept the word “justify” in the Hebrew manner of speaking;

therefore they define
justification as the absolution from sins, or the remission of sins, through
imputation of the righteousness of Christ, through adoption and inheritance
of eternal life, and that only for the sake of

Christ, who is apprehended by faith. And yet they teach at the same time
that renewal follows, that love

and good works must be begun. Therefore there will be no contention about
the matter itself, but only

about the word “justification,” which arises from this, that each understands
and interprets that word differently. It is certainly not fitting in the church to
cause disturbances about words when the matters

themselves are safe. For Paul, 1 Tim. 6:4, earnestly says that it is a harmful
illness for the church when anyone has a morbid craving for controversy
and for disputes about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, and
wrangling among men who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth.

I have reported this objection in order that it might be possible to explain

and show more readily and

plainly what is the

(“point of difference”), or what is the true issue, of this controversy

concerning the article of justification. Now our simple and clear answer is
this: We are by no means such troublemakers that we are so opposed to a
true, solid, and salutary concord and so greedy for contentions that even if a
true, godly, and salutary agreement were established concerning the matters

themselves, we would still look for matters for strife from the battles about
words.

For although the fathers mostly take the word “justify” for the renewal, by
which the works of righteousness are wrought in us through the Spirit, we
do not start a quarrel with them where they according to the Scripture
rightly and appropriately teach the doctrine how and why a person is
reconciled to God, receives the remission of sins and the adoption, and is
accepted to life eternal. This

difference in meanings has often been shown by our teachers, and also how
the former meaning can be

rightly, piously, and skillfully understood and admitted according to the

analogy of faith and the perpetual sense of the Scripture if it is accepted
with the fathers according to the manner of the Latin

composition. However, the papalists have not been placated at all. For the
dissension and strife in the

article of justification is not only about words but chiefly about the matters
themselves.

5 For this is the chief question, this is the issue, the point of controversy, the

namely, what

that is on account of which God receives sinful man into grace; what must
and can be set over against

the judgment of God, that we may not be condemned according to the strict
sentence of the Law; what

faith must apprehend and bring forward, on what it must rely when it wants
to deal with God, that it may receive the remission of sins; what intervenes,
on account of which God is rendered appeased and

propitious to the sinner who has merited wrath and eternal damnation; what
the conscience should set

up as the thing on account of which the adoption may be bestowed on us,

on what confidence can be

safely reposed that we shall be accepted to life eternal, etc.; whether it is the
satisfaction, obedience, and merit of the Son of God, the Mediator, or,
indeed, the renewal which has been begun in us, the love, and
other virtues in us. Here is the point at issue in the controversy, which is so
studiously and deceitfully concealed in the Tridentine decrees. This I
wanted for once to explain simply yet more fully that the reader may see
that what has been placed into controversy in this topic is not a strife about
words but a

very serious matter and uniquely necessary for consciences. And when all
disputations about this topic

are brought under this scope, then all things are plainer.

ARTICLE II

Concerning the Term “Justification”

1 These questions are indeed so connected, yes, they are as it were so

wrapped up in this word

“justify” that no matter to what justification by faith is attributed, or what it

is that justifies us, it at once follows freely that that is the thing on account
of which we are received into grace by God; and that faith must set that
thing against the judgment of God, lest a person be condemned; that on
account of

that thing God is rendered reconciled to us, grants us adoption, and receives
us to life eternal. This is so certain and clear, that also the men of Trent say
that justification is the translation from that state in which a man is born as
a child of wrath into the state of grace and adoption, and that a description
of the justification of the ungodly is indicated in the statement of Paul, Col.
1:13–14: “He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and
transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have

redemption and the forgiveness of sins.” The reader sees that they clearly
allude to the true meaning of

the word justify. But soon after, where the matter itself is to be explained,
what the justification of a sinner is, there “to justify” means nothing else to
them than that a condition, or inherent quality, of righteousness is infused
into man through the Spirit of renewal. We, indeed, also teach that newness
of

life is begun in the believers through the Holy Spirit; but we say that we are
not by that newness justified before God, that is, that our newness is not
that on account of which we are received into grace and receive the
remission of sins, and that it is not that on which faith should rest when it
deals with God that we may be adopted as sons and received to eternal life.
Therefore the Tridentine decrees on

justification are patched together out of very manifold deceptions, as we

have hitherto shown.

2 But it is clear from what we have already said that the true teaching of
Scripture concerning justification cannot be more appropriately explained,
understood, and preserved, and that the contrary corruptions cannot be more
correctly and clearly refuted, than from the proper and genuine meaning of

the word “justify.” Nor are the papalists ignorant of this, for wherever they
make mention of the Hebrew

idiom, they touch upon it very lightly. For it is more agreeable to their
purpose if they misuse the resemblance of an analogy from Latin word
building, that as one says “to sanctify,” so also “to justify”

may be understood. For so the inherent qualities can at once slip in, so that
our justification may be based on them.

Therefore we shall show in a few words what the proper and genuine
meaning of the word “justify”

is in this article, and this will be done in such a away that it may at the same
time be shown that the Scripture removes justification before God for the
remission of sins and eternal life from our virtues, newness, and works and
transfers it to the satisfaction, obedience, and merit of the Son of God, the
Mediator. After that we shall show that the Council of Trent condemns that
understanding, which is the
true and constant teaching of all prophets and apostles, and in its place
substitutes a clearly alien teaching and one that conflicts with Scripture.

3 But the papalists simply argue that the word justify properly signifies a
movement, or change, from unrighteousness to righteousness, as when in
natural movements one quality is driven out and another is

brought in. For they want to treat the composition of the word “justify” (
justificare) according to the analogy of the words sanctificare (“to make
holy”), vivificare (“to make alive”), calefacere (“to make warm”), frige
facere (“to make cold”), etc. I am not ignorant of the fact that the fathers
often employ the word “justify” in this sense, but the question is concerning
the idiom of the languages. I do not know of

a single example among approved authors in the Latin language in which

justificare signifies either to imbue someone with the condition of
righteousness or to infuse the quality of righteousness. I proposed

to the Jesuits earlier that, since they lean on the analogy of Latin word
building, they should present some example from those authors from whom
Latin usage is demonstrated. But though their advocate,
Andrada, has anxiously searched all of them, he cannot present any such
example.

4 In the common language of the Greeks

(“to justify”) has two meanings. First of all, it

means to judge or to pronounce something just. Thus Plutarch, in Agesilaus,

says: “When war had been declared, he forced all to stand by those things
which the Persian

(“had pronounced just”). And

in Brutus he says: “When the captive actors who had behaved insultingly at
the murder of Cassius were accused before the court, Messala Corvinus

(“pronounced it just”) that they should be beaten

with rods while naked and sent to the camp of the enemies.” The
commentator of Sophocles, in Oedipus

Coloneus, says that

is used for

(“to judge righteous”). Suidas uses the expression

(“to consider as righteous”), and he cites Lysias, who calls

(“pronouncements of righteousness”)

(“declarations of righteousness”). The second meaning

is in common use:

(“to justify”) instead of

(“to inflict punishment”), not by a private

penalty but chiefly when someone is, so to say, “judicially” punished after
the case has been judged.

Therefore Suidas explains

(“justified”) with

(“having received justice”).

And he cites Thucydides as using

(“justifications”) for

(“punishments”). Of this

meaning examples are to be found everywhere in Greek authors.

5 Among Greek authors, therefore, the word “justify” is not used in that
sense for which alone the papalists contend. There remains therefore the use
of this word in the sacred language. There its forensic meaning, as we
commonly say, is so manifest that Andrada does not dare to deny it.
However,

he anxiously seeks examples to prove that in many places in Scripture the

word “justify” does not mean
to absolve from sins but to adorn the mind with the quality of inherent
righteousness. And with this battering ram he expects to overcome the
entire doctrine of imputed righteousness. We must see, therefore, with what
examples and how surely and firmly he will prove this. In the front line he
places a

testimony from Sirach, ch. 1:18: “Religion or piety justifies the heart.” In
the Vulgate it indeed reads thus. However, Sirach does not have this here in
his own language. 71 But the reader observes what we have spoken of
above, namely, why the Tridentine Synod decreed that the Vulgate edition is
in all things

to be held as authentic. For what Sirach did not write, but what has crept
into the context from elsewhere, that Andrada quotes as authentic in order
to overthrow the righteousness of faith. However,

he passes over what Sirach himself wrote in that first chapter, v. 22:
“Unrighteous anger cannot be justified,” that is, absolved from guilt.

However, it is surprising that he has not also adduced what we read in the
Vulgate version, Ps. 72:13:

“In vain, therefore have I justified my heart.” For in the Hebrew there is
plainly another word. What he

quotes from ch. 1872 has more show to it: “Do not be afraid to be justified
even to death.” This the Council of Trent interprets in this way, that
sanctification and renewal must grow and be increased until

death. This understanding is indeed true in the doctrine of the renewal, but
let the reader consider whether Sirach here wanted this to be understood
from the word justificare. For it is this about which we are disputing. The
context shows that he is urging that, in order that we may find propitiation,
conversion should not be put off until weakness and illness set in, but that
we should pray for it “in good time”; for this is what the text says. This
sentiment he soon repeats with other words:
that is, “Do not put off to be justified until death.” What he had before
called “finding propitiation” he now calls “to be justified,” and this, he
teaches, must not be put off until death. Let the reader judge also whether
the opinion of the papalists concerning justification can be established by
that passage and ours

overthrown. What kind of faith do you think that is which rests on

foundations like this, contrary to the

clearest testimonies of Scripture? Surely, these passages are nothing but an

escape, not to be compelled

to give place to the truth.

He quotes also from the Apocalypse for the confirmation of their opinion
(Rev. 22:11): “Let him that

is righteous be justified still further: and let him that is holy be sanctified
still further.” But the answer is easy. Andrada fights for the opinion which
contends that justification and sanctification are one and the

same thing, and he wants to prove this understanding from this statement of
John. However, here John, even as Paul in 1 Cor. 6:11, expressly
distinguishes between justification and sanctification. The reader

therefore sees of what kind these proofs of Andrada are. Nor is this against
it, that the justified are commanded to be justified further, since the
remission of sins is not mutilated. For sin dwells in the flesh of the justified
and often overcomes them, so that they offend in many things. As therefore
those

whose sins are remitted, daily pray “Forgive us our debts,” in the very same
way he that is just may be

justified still: for the apostolic exhortation, 2 Cor. 5:20 is always needed in
this life: “Be reconciled to God.”
6 Therefore Andrada has by no means with these testimonies proved the
meaning of the word

“justify” which he, as the advocate of the Council of Trent, has undertaken
to defend against the doctrine of our churches, as any reader can judge. For
that he twists the statement of Isaiah “By his knowledge he shall justify
many” to his own opinion is a great piece of impudence. For there the
explanation is soon added, how that justification is to be understood, for he
says: “Because He shall bear their iniquities,” as Zacharias also sings in
Luke 1:77: “To give knowledge of salvation … in the

forgiveness of their sins.”

Therefore, what we have said against the Jesuits concerning the proper and
genuine sense of the word

“justify” in the article of justification continues to stand firm. But I repeat

what was said above: This is not the point in dispute, whether the renewal
belongs to the benefits of Christ, whether a person, when

he is reconciled to God, is at the same time also renewed through the Holy
Spirit, whether the new obedience ought to follow. For these things we
teach plainly and clearly. But this is the question, how

and why we can be justified, so that we may be received by God into grace
and be accepted to eternal

life. These things must be repeated so often lest they misrepresent this
dispute concerning the meaning

of the word “justify,” as if we denied the renewal in its proper place and
order.

Even if it could be shown (which nevertheless is not easily proved for

certain and clearly) that the word “justify” has, in certain passages of
Scripture, that meaning for which the papalists fight, nevertheless, this
would not spell defeat for the sum of the matter with which we are dealing.
For the question is not really what the word “justify” means in other
passages of Scripture, but this is

being asked, what meaning the word “justify” has in those passages of
Scripture in which the doctrine

of justification is taught and treated, as in its own sedes doctrinae. The

other examples are added only for the sake of explanation.

7 However, the antithesis is quite clear from Rom. 8, which shows the
proper and true meaning of the word “justify” in this article. It agrees
entirely with the forensic meaning, that we are absolved before

the judgment of God, for Christ’s sake, from the guilt of sin and from
damnation, pronounced just, and

received to eternal life. For this is how the words read: “Who shall bring
any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to
condemn?” etc. So also in Rom. 5 justification and condemnation are
repeatedly placed in opposition to each other. And in Rom. 3 the whole
process is, so

to say, described in judicial terms. The Law accuses all of being under sin.
Every mouth is stopped and

the whole world is made to stand guilty before God, because by the works
of the Law no flesh is justified. But we are justified freely by His grace,
through the redemption, etc. In 1 Cor. 4:3–4 we read:

“I do not want to be judged by a human court, but He that judges me is the

Lord. Therefore, though I am

not conscious of anything against myself, nevertheless, I am not for this

reason justified.” Thus in 1

John 2:1 mention is made of an advocate, as in Rom. 8:26 of an intercessor.

Ps. 143:2 reads: “Enter not
into judgment, … for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified.” In Luke
18:13–14: the publican, standing as it were before God’s tribunal, prays:
“God, be merciful to me, a sinner.” When Christ wants

to indicate that this prayer of the publican has been heard, He says: “He
went down justified,” that is,

God was propitiated with respect to his sins. Acts 13:38–39 tells us:
“Through Christ there is preached

to you the forgiveness of sins, and in this everyone who believes is justified
from all the things from

which you could not be justified by the Law.” These testimonies cannot be
frustrated by any kind of sophistry so as to be referred to the infusion of
inherent righteousnses, but they clearly show that the meaning of the word
“justify” in this article is judicial, namely, that the sinner, accused by the
Law of

God, convicted, and subjected to the sentence of eternal damnation, fleeing

in faith to the throne of grace, is absolved for Christ’s sake, reckoned and
declared righteous, received into grace, and accepted

to eternal life. And although John does not employ the word “justify,” yet
he describes the doctrine in

judicial terms: “He that believes is not judged; he does not come into
judgment.” “He sent His Son into
the world, not that He should judge the world.” And 1 John 3: “We have
passed from death to life.” In

Acts 3 Peter says that “sins are blotted out.” Paul explains this when he
says, Col. 2, that the handwriting which was against us has been blotted out.

It is also worthy of consideration what earnest care the apostles bestowed,

lest the Hebrew character

of the word “justify,” which is less well known in other languages, should
either disturb or obscure the

doctrine. For they explained it with other, clearer, and varied words. Lest it
be understood of the infusion of qualities of righteousness, it is explained,
Rom. 4, through “imputing righteousness without

works,” or through “reckoning faith as righteousness.” It is explained there

also by the word

“blessedness” and by the expression from the Psalm, “to cover iniquities,”
and “not to reckon sins.” In

Rom. 5:10–11 it is explained with the equivalent word “to be reconciled,”

which also Augustine observed. In Acts 13:38 it is equivalent to “the
remission of sins.” In Matt. 1:21: “He will save the people from their sins.”
This is explained in Acts 13:39 by the word “justify,” just as Paul says, Gal.

2:16: “We have believed in Christ Jesus in order to be justified.” In Acts

15:11 Peter says it this way:

“We believe that we are saved through the grace of Christ even as they.”
And what is said in Eph. 2:5,

“By grace you have been saved,” in Rom. 3:24 is “To be justified by grace.”
John calls it: “Not to be

judged,” “not to come into judgment.” In Rom. 5:19 “To be made

righteous” is a paraphrase of the word
“justify”, for

(“to bring into judgment”), is a judicial term for the Greeks. Such

terms are also “to loose and to bind sins.” The Greek translators used the
expressions

(“to be found righteous”) and

(“to declare righteous”) in Job 13:18;

32:2; 27:5; 40:8; just as in ch. 32:3 they used

for what they had translated with

in ch. 9:20, in other words, they used “they pronounced him wicked” for
“they condemned him.”

8 Although the fathers usually follow the analogy of the Latin composition
in the word justify, they are nevertheless often compelled by the evidence of
the Pauline argumentation to acknowledge this proper and genuine meaning
which we have shown. Thus Augustine, because he sees that in Rom. 5 “to

be justified” is explained by “to be reconciled,” acknowledges and approves

our interpretation. And on

Ps. 31 he comments: “If the ungodly is justified, then an unjust man

becomes a just one. But how? You

have done nothing good, yet forgiveness of sins is given you, etc.” In
Contra Julianum, Bk. 2, he quotes the statement of Ambrose, that “he is
justified from sin to whom all sins are remitted through Baptism.

Hilary, commenting on Matt. 9, says: “It disturbs the scribes that sin, which
the Law could not remit, is

forgiven by man, for only faith justifies.” Cyril, on John 6, says: “Grace
justifies, but the commandments of the Law condemn the more.”
Oecumenius, citing explanations of the ancients on Rom. 3, says: “The
righteousness of God is justification from God, absolution and liberation
from sins

from which the Law could not absolve.” Again: “How does justification
take place? Through the remission of sins, which we obtain in Christ
Jesus.” However, now we are not asking chiefly how the

fathers used the term “to justify,” but our question is in what sense the Holy
Spirit employs the word

“justify” in those passages of the Scripture in which He treats and teaches

the doctrine of justification, as we have already shown it most clearly.

9 This meaning agrees with the other passages of Scripture where the word
“justify” is employed with respect to judicial actions and is set in opposition
to the word “condemn.” Gen. 44:16: “What shall

we answer; what shall we say; whereby shall we be justified?” In 2 Sam.

15:4 Absalom says: “Let him

that has a cause come to me, that I may justify him.”

Is. 43:26, 9 says: “Let us argue together; let them bring their witnesses; set
forth your case, that you

may be proved right”; Ps. 51:4: “So that Thou art justified … and blameless
in Thy judgment”; Deut.

25:1: “To justify the righteous, to condemn the ungodly”; 1 Kings 8:32:
“Condemning the guilty by bringing his conduct upon his own head, and
vindicating ( justifices) the righteous by rewarding him according to his
righteousness”; Prov. 17:15: “He who justifies the wicked and he who
condemns the

righteous are both alike an abomination”; Is. 5:23: “Woe to you, who justify
the wicked and take away

the righteousness of the righteous from him”; Matt. 12:37: “by your words
you will be justified or condemned.” These examples are in agreement with
that sense which fits the subject of justification, and they illustrate the
doctrine itself.

10 But it must be diligently considered why the Holy Spirit wanted to set
forth the doctrine of justification by means of judicial terms. Worldly,
secure, and Epicurean men think that the justification

of the sinner is something easy and perfunctory, therefore they are not much
concerned about sin and do

not sincerely seek reconciliation with God, nor do they strive with any
diligence to retain it. However,

the peculiar nature of the word “justify” shows how weighty and serious an
action before the judgment

seat of God the justification of a sinner is. Likewise, the human mind,
inflated with a Pharisaical persuasion when it indulges in its own private
thoughts concerning righteousness, can easily conceive a

high degree of confidence and trust in its own righteousness. But when the
doctrine of justification is set forth under the picture of an examination and
of the tribunal of divine judgment, by a court trial, so to

say, those Pharisaical persuasions collapse, vanish, and are cast down. Thus
the true peculiar nature of

the word “justify” preserves and defends the purity of the doctrine of
justification from Pharisaical leaven, and from Epicurean opinions. And the
entire doctrine of justification cannot be understood more

simply, correctly, and appropriately, and applied to serious use in the

exercises of penitence and faith,

than through a true consideration of the judicial meaning of the word

“justify,” as the examples of many

fathers show, who often preach grandly concerning works and merits; but in
their meditations, when, as
we have said, they set forth this picture of the divine judgment and this
court trial, then they explain the teaching of this article in the most
comforting statements. In this respect Bernard is more successful than
others because he considers the doctrine and testimonies of Paul concerning
justification not in idle speculations but in serious exercises, with the
picture of the divine judgment set before him, and placing himself, as it
were, before the tribunal of God.

We have also shown above the great value of retaining in the church the
true meaning of the word

“justify” in this article, for it comprehends the matter in such a way in itself,
that no matter what it is to which our justification is attributed, it follows at
once that we are on its account received by God into

grace and received to eternal life.

Now that we have shown from clear testimonies of Scripture the truly
proper and genuine meaning of

the word “justify,” the doctrine of justification itself will be plain and clear,
if only we are allowed to seek and judge it from the divine oracles and not
from the philosophical opinions of reason. We will follow the method of
Scripture, which speaks of justification both negatively and affirmatively,
that is,

we must consider from which things it takes away and to which things it
attributes the justification of

the sinner before God to eternal life.

ARTICLE III

From Which Things Scripture Takes Away the Justification of Man to

Life Eternal
1 That no one will be justified before God through sin, that is that no one is
pleasing to God on account of crimes, and accepted to eternal life, is
without controversy. For it conflicts with the steadfast and unchangeable
will of God which has been revealed in the Law, and God Himself
pronounces it an

abomination that the ungodly should be justified in this manner, Prov.

17:15; Is. 5:23; and Ex. 23:7: “Do

not slay the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked.”

2 The question is, therefore, concerning the human properties, qualities,

actions, and works to which the name righteousness is given, whether our
justification before God to eternal life consists in these.

And reason, indeed, because it does not know any other righteousness,
plainly says that it does. But let

us hear the voice of our God pronouncing His judgment on this question in
the Scripture. And let it be

observed how the Scripture describes this entire matter in judicial terms.

Civic righteousness is, however, a different thing, by which we are

righteous before or among men

and acquire civic rewards, namely, when our actions correspond with the
laws on which righteousness

among men is based. But we are not here disputing concerning this, except
that the Scripture derides those who, like the Pharisees, in the justification
before God choose men as judges before whom they

look for the reputation and praise of righteousness, Matt. 6:1 ff.; Luke
16:15: “You are those who justify yourselves before men.” But in this way,
through ambition, the praise of this world but not praise with

God is obtained, as Christ says, Matt. 6:2: “They have their reward.” And
Luke 16:15: “What is exalted
among men is an abomination in the sight of God.” But in the matter of the
grace of God, salvation and

eternal life, God Himself must be the judge, and we must deal with Him
when we want to be justified in

such a way that we please God and are accepted to life eternal.

Reason also understands this, and therefore it brings its own righteousness
before God. In Rom.

10:13 Paul uses a very expressive word: “They seek

(‘to establish’) their own righteousness,”

that is, to set it up and place it opposite the judgment of God, as in Luke
18:10–12 the Pharisee strives

to prove this righteousness before God in various ways, trusting in these his
works, and they will try to

be justified by them, that is, to be so considered by God, to be so treated

and rewarded, as God has promised to those whom He acknowledges,
pronounces, and accepts as righteous. Thus the forensic meaning of the
term “to be justified” is wholly preserved, according to the example of Is.
43:9, 26:

“Tell, if you have anything, give witness that you may be justified”; Gen.
44:16: “What shall we answer,

what shall we say, how shall we justify ourselves?” And 1 Kings 8:32:
“Justify the righteous by giving

him according to his righteousness.”

Therefore he who brings his own righteousness before God urges that he be
justified in this way.
However, let us hear what sentence God, the righteous Judge, pronounces.
And that the matter may be

plainer we shall briefly outline the division which is found with Paul.

I. Concerning the various cults which the heathen instituted out of the blind
judgment of reason contrary to the Word of God, to this end that they might
have a gracious and favorable God, Scripture

says that they are an abomination before God, because they conflict with
the Word of God, Deut. 12 and

17. Thus Paul in Rom. 1:18–32 declares that by cults of this kind the
heathen have provoked the wrath

of God even more; and in Eph. 2:12: “You were without God in the world,
not having hope of the promise.”

II. With respect to self-chosen works which men undertake from some kind
of intention of their own,

without the Word and command of God, to the end that they may be
justified, that is, that they may obtain the grace of God and eternal
salvation, God declares, Is. 29:13, and Matt. 15:8, 9: “In vain do they
worship me with commandments and doctrines of men”; and in Is. 1:12:
“Who has required this

from your hands?”

III. Concerning the external discipline of reason according to the law of

nature in the unregenerate Paul argues in the Epistle to the Romans, and in
ch. 3 declares that the Gentiles are not justified before God through the
discipline of reason but that they are under sin: for they are without faith in
Christ and without the Holy Spirit; their hearts are wicked and unclean; the
law of nature also has been darkened

through sin, so that they hold hardly any particle of the Law concerning
certain duties of the Second Table and the discipline of the heathen does not
conform in every way even to that knowledge of the

natural law which yet remains. In sum: “An evil tree cannot bring forth
good fruits,” and “without faith

it is impossible to please God,” yes, “whatever is not of faith is sin.”

Therefore the heathen could not be justified before God through the
discipline of reason.

IV. The question about the Pharisaical righteousness approaches somewhat

more closely to our

proposition, namely, when those who have the written law of God try and
endeavor to perform the works of the Law without faith in Christ and
without the Holy Spirit, by the natural powers of free will,

to the end that they may please God, obtain His grace, and be received to
eternal life, that is, that they may be justified, for there the human mind has
a better-looking pretext for establishing its own righteousness before the
judgment of God. For God Himself has made known the Law, and has

promised to those who do it blessing and life, not only as a secular reward
but as when the scribe in Luke 10:26 asked: “What shall I do to inherit life
eternal?” Christ sets before him the commandments of

the Law and replies: “This do, and you will live.”

When therefore an unregenerate man brings his effort, diligence, yes, zeal,
as much as is in him, in

behalf of the commandments of God before His judgment, trusting and

praying to be justified on their

account, what sentence, I ask, does God, the righteous Judge, pronounce?
Christ certainly declares, Matt. 5:20: “unless your righteousness exceeds
that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of
heaven.” And Paul says in Rom. 3:20: “No human being will be justified in
His
sight by works of the Law; in Gal. 3:10: “All who rely on works of the Law
are under a curse.”

Does the Law not have promises of eternal life? Christ certainly affirms that
it does in Luke 10:28

and Matt. 19:17. Does God, then, deceive and mock men with the promises
of the Law? Far be it from

Him! For He is God, who cannot lie (Titus 1:2). And there remains what
Paul says in Rom. 3:4: “Let

God be true though every man be false.” Why, then, is an unregenerate man
not justified by the works

of the Law?” Paul answers: “Because by the Law is the knowledge of sin,”
that is, the Law causes it

that by such obedience as the unregenerate can render through their natural
powers it can by no means

be satisfied, but such doers it accuses of sin before the judgment of God,
because, even though they do

certain works of the Law, yet they do them imperfectly and corruptly; and
besides, they are in many and

weighty matters transgressors of the Law.

Nevertheless, the Law has, indeed, the promise of life, however, under the
condition not of any and

every kind of fulfillment but of a perfect and complete one, from the whole
heart, the whole mind, so

that the flesh in no way lusts against it. Concerning doers like that Paul says
in Rom. 2:13: “Not the hearers but the doers of the Law will be justified
before God”; again: “he who does these things shall
live by them.” Now when someone does certain works of the Law, no
matter how he does them, but is

in others a transgressor of the Law, the Law does not declare him righteous
before God to life eternal

but pronounces him guilty and cursed. Because “he who does not continue
in all the things which are

written in the book of the Law shall be cursed.” And “whoever keeps the
whole Law but fails in one

point has become guilty of all of it.” “If you do not commit adultery but do
kill, you have become a transgressor of the Law.”

Since, therefore, the Law is spiritual, and the unregenerate, without the
Holy Spirit, are wholly carnal,

therefore the letter of the Law is not satisfied by the old nature. Therefore
the unregenerate are not justified by the works of the Law but become
guilty and are under the curse (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:10),

because even when they do the Law, they do not do it in that manner and in
that perfection which the Law demands.

3 The controversy between us and the papalists in the article of justification

is not chiefly about these points. For in the first canon the Council of Trent
says: “If anyone says that a man can be justified by

his works, which are done either through the powers of human nature or
through the teaching of the Law, without divine grace through Christ, let
him be anathema.” However, I wanted to repeat the Pauline division briefly,
because the matter or act of the true justification is understood better from
the antithesis, and in order that it may be observed how Paul shows, by a
long enumeration, that there is simply nothing in man, whether he be
Gentile or Jew, regenerate or unregenerate, by which he can be
justified before God, that in this way the glory of justification may be truly
attributed to Christ the Mediator alone, who has been apprehended by faith.
I also wanted to show Andrada how disgraceful and intolerable that
teaching is in the church, in which he asserts that the philosophers were
justified before God to life eternal by their own moral righteousness. For
that expressly conflicts with the very

basic teachings of the Scripture.

4 From this division or enumeration we shall now the more readily come to
the real point at issue in the controversy. For it is regarding the good works
of the regenerate, or the new obedience, that there is now the chief
controversy between the papalists and us, namely, whether the regenerate
are justified by

that newness which the Holy Spirit works in them and by the good works
which follow from that renewal; that is, whether the newness, the virtues, or
good works of the regenerate are the things by which they can stand in the
judgment of God that they may not be condemned, on account of which
they have a gracious and propitiated God, to which they should look, on
which they should rely, in which they should trust when they are dealing
with that difficult question, how we may be children of

God and be accepted to eternal life. And, indeed, if human judgment were
to be consulted, the glory of

righteousness before God to life eternal would, according to the vote of all,
be given to the newness of

the regenerate. For it is not a work or doing of human powers but the gift
and working of the Holy Spirit, and hence good works are called fruits of
the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23). And it is a blessing of God

the Mediator, on account of whose merit the believers are renewed in the
spirit of their mind, so that by

the Holy Spirit conformity with the Law of God is begun in them according
to the inner man (Rom.
7:22). And that newness is called righteousness (Rom. 6:13, 18; 1 John
3:7). The Scripture also says of

the good works of the regenerate in 1 Tim. 5:4: “This is acceptable in the
sight of God”; in 1 John 3:22:

“We do what pleases Him.” These things which the Scripture ascribes to the
new obedience of the regenerate are indeed very great and glorious. And we
certainly do not take away from the new obedience its praise in its proper
place, as we shall later say when we speak of good works. However,

we are now treating the question of the justification of a man before God to
eternal life. Of this question Paul says in 1 Cor. 4:3: “But with me it is a
very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any

human court. I do not even judge myself … It is the Lord who judges me.”
Therefore we must ask what

His opinion is, because He is the judge. And He has made it known to us in
the Scripture.

5 The papalists indeed contend that the exclusory statement of Paul

“without the deeds of the Law” is to be understood only either of
ceremonial works or of the works of the unregenerate. But there are very

clear testimonies in Scripture to the effect that the praise and glory of
justification before God to life eternal are removed and taken away not only
from the Mosaic ceremonies and from the works of the unregenerate but
also from the newness, the new obedience, or good works of the regenerate.

6 Especially clear is the testimony which is found in Rom. 4, where Paul

sets forth an example of the justification of all men in the person of
Abraham, whom he therefore calls father of faith, and he takes

Abraham both after his circumcision and before, not at the beginning of his
conversion when he was first called out of Chaldean idolatry according to
Gen. 12 and Joshua 24. For in that way the exclusory
“without works” could be restricted to those works which he had done as an
unregenerate man before

his conversion from idol worship. But when he had obeyed God in faith for
a number of years from the very beginning of his call, from Gen. ch. 11
through ch. 15, then he was certainly renewed in the spirit

of his mind and adorned with many outstanding works and fruits of the
Spirit, according to Heb. 11:8–

10. In the very middle of the course of the good works of Abraham, Moses
in the Old Testament and

Paul in the New Testament put the question: “What then was the
justification of Abraham before God

for the inheritance of life eternal?” It is to this already regenerate Abraham,

adorned with spiritual newness and with many good works, that Paul
applies these statements: “To one who does not work but

trusts Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as

righteousness.” To this Abraham he applies

also this statement: “David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom
God reckons righteousness apart from works.” But that at that time the
already regenerate Abraham was certainly not without good

works but had performed many truly good works through faith, the Epistle
to the Hebrews testifies in

ch. 11. And yet the Holy Spirit through Paul clearly removes and takes
away from the operation and works of the renewed Abraham the praise and
glory of justification before God to life eternal. And he

does it in that place where he sets Abraham before us not as a single person
but as the father of faith and a universal example of true justification, for it
is written not only for the sake of Abraham but also for our sake, to whom it
will be imputed, Rom. 4:23–24. And he adds: “If Abraham was justified by
works,

he has something to boast about, but not before God.”

This testimony is so evident, so clear and firm, that also my friend Andrada
confesses that among the

papalists themselves some men of eminent learning are perplexed by this

difficulty and that he himself

cannot explain it. And indeed, he is unable also to reply anything which
could help matters with respect

to this testimony. I also do not see what any sophistry can avail against so
clear a light, unless perhaps some such thing were brought forth as
Augustine says in Contra litteras Petiliani: “He may indeed, by delaying
tactics, uphold a bad cause for a little while.” Therefore I now love this
testimony the more and think the more highly of it, because I see that it
cannot under any pretense be invalidated by the papalists.

7 This is the testimony of Moses and of the patriarchs, to which, as Paul

shows, the testimony of David must be added in the stead and in the name
of all the prophets, as he says in Rom. 3:21, that the

righteousness of faith has the testimony of the Law and of the prophets.
Therefore, when David had said, Ps. 143:1, “Hear me in Thy
righteousness,” he soon adds: “Enter not into judgment, etc.”

But does David fear that he will be treated with tyrannical cruelty, without
justice and equity, in the

judgment of God? Far from it! For the judgment of God is according to
truth (Rom. 2:2). But God is

said to enter into judgment when He tries and examines the nature, life,
actions, and works of men according to the norm of His righteousness,
which has been revealed in the Law, rendering to everyone
according to this righteousness. But why does David pray so earnestly that
this judgment of God may be

averted? Did he perhaps say this at a time when he had no good works? Or
when he had fallen into the

crime of adultery and murder and had grievously offended God? Then
indeed he prayed humbly: “Have

mercy on me, O God.”

However, in this place he says: “Enter not into judgment with Thy servant.”
But what a servant of God is he explains in Ps. 19:11: “Thy servant keeps
Thy commandments”; and in Ps. 119: “Thy servant

has loved Thy commandment”; likewise: “I have inclined my heart to do

Thy righteousness. Seek Thy

servant, because I have not forgotten Thy commandments.”

It was at a time, therefore, when he was a servant of God, that is, a man
according to the heart of God

(Acts 13:22), that he did not want to be judged according to the

righteousness of the inherent newness,

because he says: “In Thy sight shall no man living be justified.” And Paul
says, Rom. 4:6: “David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God
reckons righteousness apart from works.” It was therefore at a time when he
was a servant of God, that is, born again of the Holy Spirit, that David takes
away from himself and his works the justification which is before God to
life eternal. Nor does he speak
only of his own person, but he says: “In Thy sight shall no man living be
justified.” And lest this be understood only of the unregenerate, he says of
every saint, in Ps. 32:1–2, that his blessedness consists

in this, that righteousness without works is imputed to him.

It is therefore completely clear that there is taken away and removed from
the works of all saints in

this life the place and glory of justification before God to life eternal. And
with this teaching the patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets agree, that is, the
righteousness of faith without works, also of those who are already
regenerate, is approved by the testimony of the whole Old Testament. Other
and more

testimonies could indeed be adduced from the prophetical books, but we

follow Paul, who in this manner examines and shows the testimony and
consensus of the patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets in

Rom. 4. And for our purpose the general points of proof suffice.

8 Let us proceed to the New Testament. We shall not enumerate the separate
testimonies but, according to the example of Paul in Rom. 4, we shall
search out the consensus of Christ, of the apostles,

and of the apostolic churches. Christ sums up this entire doctrine when He
says: “He who believes in

Me is not condemned,” John 3:18; likewise, “he does not come into
judgment,” John 5:24. But what is

this judgment? Without doubt it is where the life and works of men are
examined according to the norm

of divine justice which is revealed in the Law, and as they are found either
to agree with this norm, or

not to agree, a man is pronounced either righteous, or a sinner and

unrighteous. But see that although
there is no doubt that the renewal is a benefit of the Son of God, the
Mediator, nevertheless, He does not declare that believers can by this their
renewal stand in the judgment of God, so that they are pronounced
righteous on its account and received to life eternal; but He ascribes this to
His other benefit and says: “He that believes in Me shall not perish but have
everlasting life.” But how and why? Is it in

this way and for this reason, that after they have received the newness, they
can, through it and on account of it, stand in the judgment of God? This He
certainly does not say, but that he who believes

will, for Christ’s sake, not come into judgment, and in this way will not
perish but have everlasting life.

The justification, therefore, of the believers to salvation and life eternal is

this, that they are not judged according to their works, but that, for Christ’s
sake, they are absolved from the sentence of damnation

and accepted to life eternal. Thus He says to the sanctified and renewed
apostles: “When you have done

all, say, We are unworthy servants.” Nor does He want them to say this only
concerning the works which they have done before their calling, nor only
about the time when in the beginning they were still

very weak, but, He says, when you have progressed so far through the Holy
Spirit that you have done

everything, nevertheless say, “We are unworthy servants.” However,

concerning unworthy servants, when God enters into judgment with them,
that they may be judged according to their works, that sentence is
pronounced which is found Matt. 25:30: “Cast the worthless servant into
the outer darkness;

there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” For in both passages, Matt.
25:30 and Luke 17:10, the same

term is used, “unworthy servant.”

9 The apostle Paul says of his works which he performed while he was a
Pharisee, before his conversion, Phil. 3:4–7: “If any other man thinks he has
reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more;

… as to righteousness under the Law blameless. But whatever gain I had, I

counted as loss for the sake

of Christ.” However, of the works which he did after his renewal, when he
had labored more than the

others, what, I say, does he say concerning them with respect to the article
of justification? Let the reader examine the passage, Phil. 3:7–8, and he will
find that Paul not only uses the past tense of (“I count”) for the works that
preceded his conversion but that he also by means of the particle

(“indeed”) moves forward and uses the present tense

to show that also after his

renewal he does not attribute to his works his justification before God to life
eternal. On the contrary,

when trust in righteousness before God to life eternal is patched on these

works, he declares them to be

refuse and loss. And he shows at the same time what was his righteousness
before God to life eternal at

the time when he wrote this epistle from prison, yes, what will be his
righteousness, when he attains to

the resurrection of the dead. “Nevertheless,” he says, “I count everything as

loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus, my Lord. For
His sake I have suffered the loss of all things

and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in
Him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is
through faith in Christ, the righteousness from
God which depends on faith; that I may know Him and the power of His
resurrection, and may share

His sufferings, becoming like Him in death, that if possible I may attain the
resurrection from the dead.”

10 Another passage, 1 Cor. 4:4, is still clearer: “I am not aware of anything

against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted.” The words are very
significant. For what he says, “I am not aware of anything

against myself,” is the same as what he says in Acts 23:1, “I have lived
before God in all good conscience up to this day,” and in Acts 24:16, “I
always take pains to have a clear conscience toward

God and toward men.” And this is the righteousness of a good conscience
of which he says in 1 Cor.

15:10: “I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace
of God which is with me.”

For “by the grace of God I am what I am.” But hear what the regenerated
Paul declares concerning this

his righteousness of a good conscience, which he attributes to the grace, or

the gift and operation, of God: “I am not aware of anything against myself,
but I am not thereby acquitted.” Therefore Paul expressly takes justification
before God to life eternal away from his works, in which he lived with a

good conscience before God and man after his renewal. This testimony of
the apostle is very clear.

11 Let us add the testimony concerning the apostolic churches from the
epistle to the Galatians. For there, taking occasion from the dispute about
the ceremonial works of the Law, he treats in general the

question of the entire Law and its works, as is very apparent from this entire
epistle. With many arguments and vehement words he removes and takes
away from the works of the Law justification before God to life eternal.
However, the question is whether he speaks only of the works of the
unregenerate which are done before faith and conversion. This question is
resolved on the basis of the

chronology. For before Paul wrote this epistle, the Galatians had already
been converted for some years.

Theodoret computes six years. However, for our purpose the precise
reckoning of the number of years is

unimportant. The Galatians were regenerate, because Paul testifies, Gal.

3:2, that the Holy Spirit had been given to them.

Therefore Paul is arguing about the works of the Galatians who had already
been born again through

the Spirit. This can be gathered from a comparison. The Jews, Rom. 10:3,
disputed about their own righteousness without Christ; but the Galatians
had not simply rejected Christ, nor were they excluding

faith in Christ, but they wanted to add the good works of the believers to
faith in the article of justification before God to life eternal. There was
indeed also dispute about the ceremonial works, yet

not about these only, but about the whole Law and its works; this is clear.
Nor were the Galatians disputing about their works which they had done as
unregenerate men before their faith and conversion,

whether these would justify, but the dispute was about justification by
means of their works which they

had done after their conversion and after they had received the Holy Spirit.

Now that the essential point of this question has been stated, let the reader
see in this entire epistle

with what words and arguments Paul removes and takes away from the
works of the regenerate
justification before God to life eternal. He does not simply say that a man is
not justified by the works

of the Law, but he vehemently enlarges on the matter, for he says that they
have by this opinion fallen

away from the Gospel and from the grace of God. “I do not nullify the
grace of God,” he says, “for if

justification were through the Law, then Christ died to no purpose.” “You
are severed from Christ, you

who would be justified by the Law; you have fallen away from grace, etc.”

12 More testimonies could be adduced, but for the sake of brevity I have
noted only the chief ones.

That the heavenly voice therefore removes and takes away justification
before God to life eternal also

from the good works of the regenerate we have shown first from the Old
Testament, by means of the

testimony of the patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets. Then we have shown
the same thing from the New

Testament, by means of the testimony of Christ, of the apostles, and of the

apostolic churches. And surely nothing can or should be required beyond
this for “complete proof.”

13 However, not only the bare proposition in the Scripture must be

observed, but besides this the reasons should also be considered why
justification is denied to the works of the regenerate. For in this

way the whole matter will be plainer. One of Paul’s reasons is that
justification by works belongs to the
law of deeds, or works, according to Rom. 3:10 and Gal. 3:10. The Law
docs not pronounce a man righteous before God to life eternal because of
some small particle or because of some kind of obedience and conformity.
But it requires that the entire man, according to all his parts and according
to all actions of each single part correspond to the norm of the righteousness
in God which is revealed in

the Law and, indeed, that it correspond exactly with that purity, perfection,
and completeness which the

Law prescribes and demands. And if anyone keeps the whole law but fails
in one point, he is pronounced guilty of all. Andrada, indeed, craftily
attempts to invalidate this testimony by interpreting

the “one point” as speaking of charity, in order that the meaning may be that
the works of the Law do

not justify if they are done without charity. However, James explains in an
express interpretation what

he wanted to have understood by that “one point.” For he says: “If you do
not commit adultery, but do

kill, you have become a transgressor of the Law. For He who said, ‘You
shall not commit adultery,’ said

also, ‘You shall not kill.’”

Therefore whoever wants to be justified by works, if he has not kept all

things which are written in

the book of the Law, so that he does them, him the Law does not pronounce
righteous but guilty and

cursed (Gal. 3:10; James 2:10). Now the obedience of the regenerate in this
life is indeed a conformity

with the law of God that has been begun, but one which, on account of the
flesh, is yet imperfect and
unclean, as the regenerate Paul complains in Rom. 7:18–23: “I can will
what is right, but I cannot do it.

… When I want to do right, evil lies close at hand … I see in my members

another law at war with the

law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in
my members … With my mind I serve the law of God, but with the flesh I
serve the law of sin.” But with such obedience the Law

is not satisfied. For the Law is spiritual, that is, it requires a spiritual
conformity, or obedience, to which nothing that comes from the evil and
corrupt flesh adheres. “But I,” says the regenerate Paul, “am carnal, sold
under sin, etc.” If, therefore, God enters into judgment with the regenerate
to judge them according to their works, they will not be justified in His
sight. For where the Law is able to show sin,

there it does not justify but makes guilty, curses, and condemns, according
to the saying: “He who does

not keep all things, let him be cursed.”

However, the statement in 1 John 1:8, speaks of all men: “If we say we have
no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” And for all the
righteous the daily prayer in this life is prescribed:

“Forgive us our debts.” “There is not a righteous man on the earth who does
good and never sins.” “If

Thou, O Lord, shouldst mark iniquities, Lord, who could stand?” For “who
understands his errors?”

Therefore Paul says: “I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am

not thereby acquitted.” For I

am not judged by a human judge, nor do I judge myself: but He who judges
me is the Lord, “who will
bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the
purposes of the heart.” He uses the word

(“to judge”), which is a forensic term, used when investigations are held
concerning

matters, or when cases are investigated, examined, and discussed in court in

order that justice may be

rightly administered. For so it is used in Luke 23:14; Acts 12:19; 24:8;

28:18. And because the works

even of a regenerate Paul cannot endure such an investigation in the

judgment of God, therefore Paul

declares that he is not justified by them. This reason is so clear and firm that
it has moved even Pighius, that, although otherwise he most bitterly attacks
the doctrine of our churches, he nevertheless openly acknowledges and
confesses that not even the inherent righteousness of the regenerate can
stand in the

judgment of God, so that they may be justified on account of it to life

eternal.

14 The second reason of Paul is taken from the distinction between the
righteousness of the Law and

the righteousness of faith in Rom. 10 and Gal. 3. For the righteousness of

the Law is that a man does the things that are written in the Law; but the
righteousness of faith is by believing to appropriate to oneself what Christ
has done for us. Therefore the works by which the regenerate do those
things which are written in the Law, either before or after their renewal,
belong to the righteousness of the Law, though

some in one way, others in another. For before the renewal the Law extorts
from free will some kind of
discipline, but in the renewal the Holy Spirit writes the Law into the hearts
of the regenerate (Jer. 31:33) so that they delight in the Law of God (Rom.
7:22) and obey it from the heart (Rom. 6:17). And this

obedience is the beginning of that righteousness which the Law demands of

us. For the sum of the Law

is charity. In this manner and for this reason it is called “the righteousness
of the Law.” But all arguments of Paul return to this, that men in this life are
not justified before God to life eternal by the righteousness of the Law.
Therefore also the regenerate are not justified by their charity, which is the
sum of the Law.

In this way the righteousness of the Law and the righteousness of faith are
distinguished, because Paul expressly says that the Law is not of faith. For
it is not as though faith justified because it prepares for the attaining of a
righteousness which consists in doing, or in works which the Law
prescribes and

demands. For Paul says in Gal. 2: “We have believed in Christ not that we
might through faith obtain

the righteousness of works by which we may be justified but that we may

be justified by faith, not by

works.” For since it was impossible for the Law to justify us, because it was
made weak through the flesh, God by grace effected the transfer of our
justification from the Law, that is, from our doing, to faith, which accepts
what Christ has done for us. And these two things are separated by this
antithesis:

Those who are justified by faith in Christ are not justified by the Law; and
those who want to be justified by doing the things which the Law demands
are not justified by faith in Christ. Therefore Paul

in Galatians argues that those who are not willing wholly in humble
gratitude to use the benefit of God,
who transfers our justification from the Law to faith in Christ but patch on
their works which they do

according to the demand of the Law — those, I say he declares, have lost
Christ and have fallen from

grace. For we must be justified either solely by the Law or solely by faith in
Christ. This argument shows the great importance of this discussion.

15 The third reason is that all our own boasting may be excluded, so that he
who boasts may boast in the Lord, by whom Christ has been made our
righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30). But boasting is not excluded

by the law of works (Rom. 3:27), that is, when someone inherits eternal life
because he has done the things which are written in the Law (Luke 10:28).
But it is excluded by the law of faith, that is, because

“Christ is the end of the Law, that everyone who has faith may be justified”
(Rom. 10:4). Therefore the

glory and praise of our justification before God to life eternal is owed to the
obedience and merit of Christ, not as to the cause which makes it that there
is something inherent in us through which we, by

doing the things which are written in the Law, are justified, but because the
obedience of Christ is imputed to us for righteousness. That glory cannot be
taken away from Christ and transferred to either

our renewal or our obedience without blasphemy. And because the

obedience of Christ, by which He fulfilled the Law for us for righteousness
to everyone who believes, is not defective, mutilated, or imperfect,
therefore it is an insult to patch our own works on the merit of Christ that
we may be justified, as if the obedience of Christ did not suffice for our
justification before God unless it were perfected by the patch of our own
righteousness.

16 The fourth reason is found in Rom. 4, namely, that the promise of the
inheritance of eternal life may be sure. For when this is based on the
condition of our obedience, because this is imperfect and impure through
the flesh, the promise is always uncertain. Therefore it is by faith according
to grace,

that the promise may be sure. For if those who are of the Law are heirs,
faith is made void, and the promise is abolished. For the Law brings wrath
(Rom. 4:15), so that not only those who lack the works

of the Law are under the curse but also those who labor in the works of the
Law (Gal. 3), because they

do not continue in all the things which are written in the book of the Law to
do them.73

17 These things I wanted to explain somewhat more fully, for on this hinge
the controversy between

us and the papalists chiefly turns in the article of justification, namely,

whether the regenerate are justified before God to life eternal on account of
their newness and works. But I repeat what has already

been said a number of times: We acknowledge that the renewal is a very

great benefit of the Son of God, the Mediator, through the Holy Spirit in us.
We teach that the new obedience must follow after the

reconciliation; and we give to it, in its place, that which the Scripture gives
to it, as we shall show later when we speak about good works. However, we
have learned from Scripture that this dignity and glory,

that they are our justification before God to life eternal, must not be given
to our renewal and good works. For this dignity and glory belongs to the
obedience, or righteousness, of the only-begotten Son

of God, our Mediator, imputed to us through faith.

18 So far we have shown how the Scripture denies to us and takes away
from us the justification before God to life eternal, so that it demonstrates
by a division or enumeration that there is or inheres
neither in nature nor in life nor in qualities, habits, or works of men in this
life, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, regenerate or unregenerate, that by
which they can so stand in the judgment of God that on account of it they
may be justified to life eternal. And this division, whether there is or inheres
in any part of man, or in his actions, something by which he can be justified
before God, was instituted by Paul, as it were, in the form of an
examination, because the Pharisaical persuasion of our own inherent

righteousness, which is to be set against the judgment of God, naturally

inheres in the minds of all. And

for the doctrine of justification solely through the grace, or mercy, of God,
on account of the obedience

of the one Mediator, Christ, it is necessary that it be removed and taken

away completely from all the

things which are, or inhere, in man, whether he be Jew or Gentile,

regenerate or unregenerate.

ARTICLE IV

How Scripture Teaches that a Man Is Justified Before God to Life

Eternal

1 Now that the negative side has been established, the affirmative teaching
will be clear from the Word of God, namely, how we are justified before
God to life eternal, or what the righteousness is which we must bring before
God when we deal with Him, that He may absolve us from the sentence of

damnation, so that He may be reconciled and gracious to us, that we may be

His children and accepted

to life eternal. For it has already been shown in the preceding, first, that the
judgment of God does not

find in us in this life, not even in the regenerate, so perfect and so pure an
inherent righteousness that we can stand before God in this way, that we
may on account of it be justified to life eternal. Secondly, He

finds in us, also in the saints in this life, many and varied sins (Ps. 32:3–6; 1
John 1:8), yes, sin itself dwelling in our flesh, rebelling against the law of
the mind, and taking captive even the regenerate, as

Paul complains in Rom. 7. Thirdly, also the divine law, which is the norm
and rule of righteousness in

God, declares those guilty and cursed who do not continue in all things
which are written in the Law so

that they do them. Fourthly, however, God, who is rich in mercy on account
of the great love with which

He loved us, not willing that we should perish in eternal death, to which we
had been condemned by the

just sentence of the divine law, justifies us freely by His grace, that is, He
absolves us from the sentence of damnation, counts us righteous, and
accepts for life eternal those whom He has received into grace,

that is, those who acknowledge their sins and confess them and by faith lay
hold of the offered promise

of mercy in Christ, the Mediator, according to Rom. 3:21–28.

2 The papalists, however, contend that “grace” in that statement of Paul

means the gift of newness, or love, which is freely conferred on and infused
into the believers by God for Christ’s sake through the

Holy Spirit, so that through this newness, or charity, they can stand in the
judgment of God and on account of it be received into grace and be
accepted to life eternal, that is, be justified. And there is no doubt that the
renewal is, indeed, a gift of the Holy Spirit for Christ’s sake and that love,
together with all other virtues, is kindled by the Holy Spirit in the believers.
But the question is concerning justification. We have shown, however, with
the clearest and firmest testimonies of Scripture that the regenerate cannot
in this life be justified before God to life eternal by their newness, or love. It
is therefore a manifest perversion of the Pauline statement which the
papalists invent for it, contrary to his consistent teaching.

ARTICLE V

The Term “Grace”

1 The word “grace” in Scripture often means favor, good will, or mercy;
sometimes, indeed, it also

means the gifts which are conferred from good will. However, the question
is what in particular the term

“grace” means in those passages in which Paul argues that we are justified
freely through the grace of

God. Likewise: “You are saved by the grace of God.” The testimonies are
not obscure or ambiguous but

clear, certain, and firm that the word “grace” is to be understood in this
argument of the gratuitous mercy, goodness, good will, or favor, of God,
who embraces in His grace and receives into grace the unworthy for the
sake of His Son, the Mediator. For Paul, in Rom. 5, clearly distinguishes
between

“grace” and the “gift of grace,” as grace and truth are distinguished in John
1. Both are indeed the gift

of the Son of God, the Mediator. However, when Paul says that we are
justified and saved by grace, he

understands that grace which the Scriptures distinguish from the gift of
grace, that is, he understands not our newness but the mercy of God, or the
gratuitous acceptance. That is clear from this, that Paul, in the article of
justification, places grace in opposition to good works, not to those only
which reason performs without the Holy Spirit but also the works of
Abraham, which are gifts and fruits of the Spirit,
Rom. 4:4: “To one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as
his due.” And what he says in

Rom. 3:24–28, we are justified by grace without the works of the Law, that
he applies in Rom. 4 to the

works of the regenerate Abraham. And thus he places justifying grace in

opposition to Abraham’s working through the renewal of the Spirit. For the
statement in Rom. 11:6 is general: “If it is by grace, it is no longer on the
basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.” And when Paul
says, 2

Tim. 1:9, He has saved us, “not in virtue of our works but in virtue of His
own purpose and the grace

which He gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago,” there certainly grace cannot
mean anything inherent in us.

For the grace of Christ was given us ages ago, when we did not yet exist,
yes, when the foundations of

the earth had not yet been laid.

2 Scripture clearly shows by means of other synonyms or equivalent words

how it wants to have the

word “grace” understood in these debates. In Titus 3:4 it speaks of “the

goodness and loving kindness”

by which God embraces the poor and lost race of men. In the same place it
says: “In virtue of His own

mercy He saved us … so that we might be justified by His grace and

become heirs … of eternal life.”

And in Eph. 2:4: “God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with
which He loved us, even when
we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by
grace you have been saved).” So also what is written in Heb. 2:9: “By the
grace of God He might taste death for everyone,”

that Paul sets forth as follows, Rom. 5:8: “God shows His love for us in that
while we were yet sinners

Christ died for us.” And in Heb. 4:16 we read: “Let us draw … near to the
throne of grace, that we may

receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” These things are so
clear that both Thomas and

Richard of Middleton confess that some of the ancients explained grace as

the good pleasure and gratuitous love of God, by which He chooses, calls,
justifies, and adopts us, according to Eph. 1.

ARTICLE VI

The Adverb “Gratis”

1 Paul added the little word gratis in order that he might illustrate more
fully the specific and true meaning of the term “grace” in the article on
justification and salvation and secure it against all corruptions: “Justified
gratis by His grace.” The meaning of the Hebrew word wn (“gratis”) is thus
understood, for it is set in opposition to the payment of a price or
satisfaction, Gen. 29:15: “Should you serve me for nothing (tan)? Tell me,
what shall your wages be?” Ex. 21:2: “He shall go out free, for nothing”;
Num. 11:5: “The fish we ate … for nothing”; 2 Sam. 24:24: “I will not offer
burnt offerings
… which costs me nothing.” It means also that something is done without
cause, or without merit, beside or contrary to merit, as in Ps. 69:4: “They
hate me without cause” ;74 Ps. 109:3: “They attack me without a cause”;
Prov. 24:28: “Be not a witness against your neighbor without cause” ;75 1
Sam. 19:5:

“Why will you sin against innocent blood by killing David without cause?”
1 Kings 2:31: “Take away

… the blood … shed without cause”; Ezek. 6:10 and 14:23: “I have not
done this evil without cause,

says the Lord”; Jer. 15:13: “Your treasures will I give as spoil without
price,” that is, to those from whom you have not deserved such a thing;
Lam. 3:52: “They have hunted me like a bird … without cause,” that is,
those whom he gave no cause. In these examples the Greek interpreters
always translated

the Hebrew word

with the particle

(“gratis”), which is used in the New Testament as follows:

2 Cor. 11:7: “I preached the Gospel without cost (

) to you”; Rev. 21:6: “I will give water without

price”; 2 Thess. 3:8: “We did not eat anyone’s bread without paying, but
with toil.” Sirach 29:7: “Many

are deceived

, that is, when they would have deserved something far different.

2 I have quoted these examples because they illustrate the meaning of the
little word gratis. For the enemies of David are said to have hated and
persecuted him gratis (“without a cause”), because there was in David no
cause or desert why they should hate and persecute him; rather, they found
cause in him why they should not have hated him, but the cause of the
hatred was in the evil disposition of the

enemies. And in Ezekiel God is said not to punish gratis (“without a

cause”), that is, those in whom He finds no cause or desert of punishment.
From this it can be understood why Paul in Rom. 3:24 adds to

the word “grace” the particle “gratis.” For in Gen. 39:4 the text says of
Joseph: “He found grace in the

sight of Potiphar.” But there is the added note “because he was a prosperous
man,” that is, on account of

the eminent gifts which he noticed in Joseph he loved him and made him
great. Therefore, lest anyone

think that we are justified and saved by the grace of God in the same
manner, Paul adds the particle

“gratis,” which shows: (1) that the cause or merit that we are justified
before God to life eternal neither is nor inheres in us; (2) that God finds in
us many causes why He could condemn us; (3) that God receives into grace
and accepts to life eternal the unworthy, who deserve something far
different, out of

pure goodness and mercy, for the sake of His Son. This is the same as what
the psalm says, “He did not

deal with us according to our sins nor reward us according to our

iniquities,” and what Daniel says,

“Not according to our righteousness, but according to Thy mercy.”

Therefore we are justified freely ( gratis) by the grace of God, not because
we are or become perfectly just and without sin in this life but because the
mercy of God forgives and covers the sins which it finds in us, for Christ’s
sake (Rom. 4).
“For God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their
trespasses against them” (2

Cor. 5:19). And through Christ there is proclaimed to us forgiveness of sins

from everything from which

we could not be justified by the Law (Acts 13:38–39). For this is “the
knowledge of salvation … in the

forgiveness of their sins” (Luke 1:77). For “if we say we have no sin, we
deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is
faithful and just and will forgive our sins.” For “if anyone does sin, we have
an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ; and He is the expiation for our
sins” (1

John 1:8–2:2). Therefore, to one who trusts Him who justifies the ungodly,
his faith is reckoned as

righteousness without works. (Rom. 4:5)

ARTICLE VII

What That Righteousness Is Which We Plead Against the Judgment of

God in

Justification

1 What we have said above is clear, firm, and certain from the testimonies
of the Scripture. But the question, the explanation of which will shed much
light on this subject, is whether and how God justifies the ungodly who is
without righteousness. For human courts often acquit a wicked man either

through an error or through carelessness or through wickedness when

wickedness is either ignored, or

not heeded, or approved.

2 These things, however, neither can nor should be attributed to God in any
way in the justification of a sinner. For in Prov. 17:15 and Is. 5:23 God
Himself pronounces it an abomination to justify the ungodly in this manner.
Nor is it a right answer in this place if it is said that, because God is the
freest of free agents, He acts justly even though He does what He Himself
pronounces an abomination. For that

norm of righteousness which is revealed in the Law is the eternal,

immovable, and unchangeable will of

God. For sins this norm requires the fullest satisfaction, and for
righteousness it requires the most complete and pure fulfillment of the Law.
But is God, when He justifies the ungodly gratis by grace, without the
works of the Law, in conflict with and contrary to Himself, because He has
revealed His will differently in the Law? Not at all! For in Mai. 3:6 He says:
“I the Lord do not change,” and in Num.

23:19: “God is not man, that He should lie, or a son of man that He should
repent. Has He said, and will

He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not fulfill it?” Therefore Paul
says, Rom. 3:31, that we do

not overthrow the Law when we teach that a man is justified by faith
without the works of the Law. On

the contrary, we uphold it. And in Matt. 5:17–18, Christ says: “Think not
that I have come to abolish the

Law. … Truly I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not
a dot, will pass from the

Law until all is accomplished.” Therefore that sentence of the Law will
remain firm and fixed, that satisfaction is required for sins, and not just any
kind of satisfaction but one that is sufficient and worthy; and that for
righteousness a fulfillment is required and an obedience that is in every way
perfect and absolute. However, we cannot in this life render such a
satisfaction and have such a righteousness.
And yet it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than that one iota or
one little dot of the Law should fall, which is not satisfied by the perfection
that is owed. What then? Will therefore no man living be justified in the
sight of God; will all be damned eternally?

Just this would happen if the outcome depended on us. But here the Gospel
reveals to us that God in

His secret council and surpassing mercy has found such a way and method
that both the righteousness

of God revealed in the Law might be satisfied and that man might be
justified to life eternal gratis by

the grace of God, through faith, without the works of the Law, namely, that
the Son of God should be

sent into the world and come into the flesh to deliver, justify, and save the
human race. But how was this our Mediator made our Righteousness, our
Deliverer and Savior? Was it by dissolving and destroying

the sentence of the divine will revealed in the Law? The Son of God
Himself certainly says that this opinion and persuasion is false, because this
is impossible, according to Matt. 5:17–18; Luke 16:16–17.

But He was for this reason made under the Law, not for Himself nor in His
own name, but that He might redeem those who were under the Law (Gal.
4:4–5). Therefore He took on Himself in the place

and in the name of us all the satisfaction for sins, the suffering of the
penalties, and the fulfillment of the Law by means of the most perfect
obedience. And for this reason He assumed our nature, that in that

nature, which was under the Law, satisfaction and fulfillment might be
made. However, because it had

to be a satisfaction and fulfillment that would be adequate and sufficient for

the sins and for the righteousness of the whole world, therefore it was
necessary that the person of the Mediator should be

both God and man, in order that the power and efficacy of the satisfaction
and fulfillment might be

infinite and sufficient for the whole world. But you say: “How does this
relieve me, that another person made satisfaction to the Law, when it is I
whom the Law presses down? ‘You shall love!’ ‘You shall not

covet!’ And Rom. 2:8–9: ‘Wrath and fury, tribulation and distress for every
human being who does evil!’ Yes, in Ezek. 18:20, God pronounces this
sentence: ‘The soul that sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the
iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the
righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of
the wicked shall be upon himself.’ Therefore,

on account of a foreign righteousness he who is himself a sinner is not

justified.” I reply: It is certain that the Law requires righteousness of
everyone, and from everyone such satisfaction and conformity as

it requires. For it is not the teaching of the Law that we are redeemed and
justified by a foreign satisfaction and righteousness; one man also cannot
make satisfaction for another before God, as Ps.

49:7–8 says: “None can by any means redeem his brother or give to God a
ransom for him: for the redemption of his soul is costly.” However, the
Gospel reveals and declares this mystery, which was hidden for long ages,
that since the human race could not make satisfaction to the Law and the
Law could in no way be dissolved and destroyed, God made a transfer of
the Law to another person (a matter

which belongs to the article of justification) who should fulfill the Law both
by satisfaction and obedience for the whole human race. And because that
person is both God and man, therefore His satisfaction is the expiation for
the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2), and hence Christ is the end of the
Law for the salvation of everyone who believes (Rom. 10:4). And Him God
sets before us through
the ministry, that through His redemption, by faith in His blood, we may be
justified gratis by the grace

of God. (Rom. 3:25)

3 Because therefore (1) by the council of the entire Trinity the Son of God
was sent into the world, made of a woman, made under the Law, that He
might redeem them that were under the Law, that we

might thus receive the adoption; and because (2) the satisfaction and
obedience of Christ, the Mediator,

God and man, is of such a nature and so great that it can be the expiation for
the sins of the whole world and suffice for righteousness to every one who
believes; and because (3) in the ministry Christ is set before us by God in
order that we may be justified through His redemption by faith; therefore,
when faith, in true contrition, lays hold of and applies to itself that
satisfaction and obedience of Christ, then it possesses that which it can
plead against the accusations of the Law in the judgment of God, and thus

stand, that we may be justified.

The believers have, indeed, from the renewing by the Holy Ghost also an
inherent righteousness; but

because this is only begun, imperfect, and as a result of the flesh still
defiled in this life, therefore we cannot by means of it stand in the judgment
of God, nor does God justify us because of it, that is, absolve us from sins,
receive us into grace, and accept us to life eternal, as has been shown above
from

Scripture. Indeed, the satisfaction and obedience of Christ, by which He

fulfilled the Law for us, is that righteousness, which is both sufficient and
worthy to be pronounced just in the Judgment of God. And

this is imputed through faith to the believers, so that through it and because
of it they can stand in the judgment of God, in no other way, yes, in a much
better way, than if they themselves had by perfect obedience made
satisfaction to the Law. For they have by imputation a righteousness which
is both God’s and man’s. Therefore, on account of the satisfaction and
obedience of Christ, imputed to us by

God through faith, the believers are justified, that is, they receive remission
of sins, are absolved from the sentence of damnation, are received into
grace, adopted as sons, and accepted to everlasting life.

4 We do not, therefore, teach that believers are justified without

righteousness, a justification of the ungodly which God pronounces an
abomination in Prov. 17:15 and Is. 5:23, but we say that it is necessary that
in justification a righteousness should come in and intervene, and indeed,
not just any kind of righteousness but one which is sufficient and worthy in
the judgment of God to be declared suitable for eternal life. However, our
inherent righteousness, which is begun in the renewal through the

Holy Spirit, is not such on account of the adhering imperfection and

impurity of the flesh. Therefore a

different righteousness is necessary, by which, when it enters in and

intercedes, we may be justified before God to life eternal. This indeed is the
satisfaction and obedience, that is, the righteousness of Christ, the Mediator,
which is offered through the ministry of the Word and of the sacraments, is
apprehended by faith, and is imputed by God to the believers, so that we
can interpose it between the

judgment of God and our sins, so that we are protected under it as under a
shield from the divine wrath

which we have deserved, so that “covered by it we may now boldly and

securely stand before the divine
tribunal and thus be pronounced righteous to life eternal.” These are words
of Pighius, who, though he

is otherwise a most bitter opponent of our doctrine, is nevertheless

compelled by the evidence of the truth to acknowledge and confess this
statement as true, godly and in harmony with Scripture.

5 With respect to Christ, therefore, who makes satisfaction to the Law for
us, it is redemption, merit, and righteousness; but with respect to us, it is
grace or undeserved mercy, because the judgment of God

does not find in us, even in the regenerate, in this life an inherent
righteousness that is sufficient and worthy that we may be justified on
account of it to life eternal. Rather, it finds in us, even in the regenerate,
some, yes, many and varied, sins which we do not sufficiently know, on
account of which, if

He wanted to enter into judgment with us according to the severity of the

Law, He could condemn us.

Therefore it is by free grace that we unworthy and undeserving ones are

justified. The obedience of Christ, indeed, is the merit on account of which
we are justified. However, that God sent His Son into

the world and that the Son of God, the Mediator, made satisfaction to the
Law for us, this no worthiness

of ours, no merit of ours, has brought about; but when we had deserved
something far different, God decreed and bestowed this out of pure grace
and mercy.

Neither do we merit by any worthiness of our own that the righteousness of

Christ should be imputed

to us, but it is imputed without works, gratis, by the grace of God to the
believers (Rom. 4:16). Thus
with respect to ourselves it is solely the pure gratuitous grace, goodness,
love, and mercy of God when

we are justified before God to eternal life. This explanation shows that the
entire doctrine of justification is simple and clear.

6 But we do not ourselves devise this teaching, that Christ the Mediator has
fulfilled the Law for us by the fullest satisfaction of the punishments and by
the most perfect obedience and that this righteousness of the Mediator is
imputed to the believers, that by it they may be justified before God to

life eternal. But this is the specific and perpetual doctrine of the Gospel, of
which we shall note down

only a few clear statements.

Gal. 3:13: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a
curse for us … that in
Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles.” You
hear that the Gentiles obtain

the blessing by which they are delivered from the curse on account of the
redemption of Christ, by which He was made a curse for us.

Gal. 4:4–5: “God sent forth His Son, born of woman, born under the Law,
to redeem those who were

under the Law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” Therefore we

are adopted as sons on account

of the satisfaction and obedience of Christ.

2 Cor. 5:21: “For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, that in
Him we might become

the righteousness of God.” But how was Christ made sin? Certainly by
imputation. And thus we are made the righteousness of God in Him.

Rom. 8:3–4: “For God has done what the Law, weakened by the flesh,
could not do; sending His own

Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, He condemned sin in the
flesh, in order that the just requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us.”
This most beautiful statement the Latin translation obscures; for what can
that mean, de peccato damnare peccatum? However, the phrase is taken
from the Septuagint, which translated “sacrifice for sin” perfectly and
skillfully

(“for sin”). Lev. 4

and 5 they say both

(“for sin”) and

(“the sin offering”). Therefore the

meaning is that a sacrifice for sin was required to expiate sin; but the
sacrifice of a ram, calf, goat, a bird

of the turtle or the common doves could not work that expiation. For the
Law accuses and condemns not the nature of guadrupeds or birds but the
nature of man, which is corrupted through sin. For this reason

God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, that is, in the flesh by
which He should be like His brethren in all things except sin; that He might
“for sin,” that is, with such a sacrifice for sin, in which the sacrificial victim
was His own body, which owed nothing to sin, condemn sin in that same
human

flesh which sin had subjected to condemnation. And because He is the Son
of God and was sent by God

to become the offering for us, therefore His sacrifice has such power and
efficacy, as Paul says, that the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled in us.
But how? That we might be justified by the Law? By no means! For Paul
sharply contends that we are not justified by the Law, but that the
righteousness of the

Law, that is, the most absolute righteousness which the Law demands and
requires of us, may be fulfilled not by us but in us, because Christ, who has
fulfilled the Law for us, is in us; that is, He dwells in us through faith (Eph.
3:17). However, that fulfillment of the Law which takes its beginning from
us

does not belong here but in another place, as Paul says: “Christ is not in
those who do not have the Spirit of Christ.” Therefore, he says, “Who walk
not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

And in Matt. 20:28 we read: “The Son of man came … to give His life as a
ransom for many.”

1 Tim. 2:6: “He gave Himself as a ransom for all.” Rom. 10:4: “Christ is the
end of the Law that everyone who has faith may be justified.” In Rom. 5:9,
Paul says that we are justified through the blood
of Christ. And in explanation of this he says that we are reconciled to God
by the death of His Son. “For

as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s

obedience many will be made

righteous” (Rom. 5:19). But how? Paul answers in Rom. 4:5: “Because
faith is reckoned as

righteousness.” Not because faith is in itself such a virtue but bscause it lays
hold of, accepts, embraces, and possesses Christ, who is the end of the Law
for righteousness to everyone who believes. For this is

the righteousness which God imputes without our works to those who are
made blessed. For through the

redemption which is in Christ Jesus we are justified (Rom. 3:24). Jer. 23:6:
“This is the name by which

He will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’” 1 Cor. 1:30: “Him God
made … our righteousness.”

2 Cor. 5:21: “That in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” Is.
53:5, 6, 11: “Upon Him was

the chastisement that made us whole, and with His stripes we are healed.”
“The Lord has laid on Him

the iniquity of us all.” “By His knowledge shall the righteous One … make
many to be accounted righteous.”

Rom. 4:23, 24: “It was written for our sakes. It will be reckoned to us who
believe in Him that raised

up from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses
and raised for our justification.”

You hear both things, that God imputes something to the believers, and
what it is He imputes; namely, that Christ was put to death for our sins and
that He was raised for our righteousness. Rom.

5:21: “Grace reigns through righteousness to eternal life through Christ

Jesus our Lord.” Christ is, however, our righteousness. (Jer. 23:6; 1 Cor.
1:30; Rom. 10:4)

But how can we be justified to life eternal through this foreign

righteousness? I reply, as Paul says,

Gal. 3:27: “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on
Christ.” At the same time we have

been clothed also with His righteousness. Rom. 8:32: “With His Son God
gives us all things.” But Christ has a perfect fulfillment of the Law, or
righteousness, for us. Therefore the Father gives that to

the believers that they may be justified on account of it.

7 What I have here briefly related is the constant teaching of the prophetic
and the apostolic Scripture in the Old and in the New Testament concerning
the justification of man before God to life eternal. On

this we should, and safely can, place our trust that we may be justified on its
account, that is, that we

may receive remission of sins, be absolved from the deserved sentence of

damnation, be received by God into grace, be adopted as sons, and finally
be received to eternal life.

71 The original Greek of Sirach seems to bear no relation to the passage in

the Vulgate.

72 Sirach 18:22.

73 We follow the edition of 1566. The editions of 1578 and 1599 and that of
Preuss omit the words: verumetiam qui sunt ex operibus legis. The omission
robs the passage of its thrust.
74 All editions have “Ps. 54.” However, the passage is found in the Vulgate
in Ps. 68:5, in the RSV in Ps. 69:4.

75 In this passage the Vulgate text has frustra instead of gratis for the
Hebrew

SECTION II

The Testimonies of the Ancients Concerning Justification

In the writings of the fathers there are, indeed, found many dissimilar
statements, because they use the

word justify in a different sense. However, when they examine the emphasis
of the words in the statements of Scripture closely, and especially when in
trials and meditations they place themselves, as

it were, before the tribunal of God, then they approve this our
understanding, or rather the teaching of

Scripture, in the most comforting statements, namely, that we are reconciled

to God, receive forgiveness

of sins, have an appeased and gracious God, are adopted as children, and
are received to life eternal, not on account of our virtues or our good works,
even when we are regenerated, but by the gratuitous mercy

of God, on account of the satisfaction, merit, obedience, or righteousness of

the Son of God, the Mediator, when we lay hold of the promise of the
Gospel by faith.

Basil says in a sermon on humility: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord,
that Christ has been made

by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, redemption. This is

perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his
own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy
of the true righteousness and is justified solely by faith in Christ.” And lest
anyone think that Basil is not speaking of the regenerate, he adduces the
example of Paul, Phil. 3:8–9, who despises not only the

righteousness of the works which he had when he was a Pharisee but also
that which he had when he

wrote that epistle and does not want to be found in it so far as the article of
justification before God to life eternal is concerned.

Origen, writing on Rom. 3 and explaining the statement that boasting is

excluded not by the law of

works but by the law of faith, adduces the example of Paul, Gal. 6:14: “Far
be it from me to glory except in the cross of Christ.” And he says: “You see
that Paul does not glory on account of his own

righteousness, purity, and wisdom nor because of his other virtues and
deeds. But when was this? At the

time when he was writing to the Galatians.”

Hilary, commenting on Ps. 51, says: “For these very works of righteousness
would not suffice to merit perfect blessedness unless the mercy of God did
not consider in this our will to righteousness the

defects of human changes and impulses. Therefore, there is hope in the

mercy of God forever and ever.”

Basil, commenting on Ps. 114, says: “For an eternal rest awaits those who
have rightly contended in

this life; not on account of the merits of their works but from the grace of a
most bountiful God, in which they have hoped.”

Augustine, in Ad Bonifacium, Bk. 1, ch. 21, says: “You may proclaim that
ancient just men possessed ever such great virtue, yet nothing saved them
except faith in the Mediator, who shed His blood for the
remission of sins.” In the same place, Bk. 3, ch. 5, he says: “The Pelagians
believe they are singing the

praises of the saints if they do not dare to say that they were men of
imperfect virtue, although the chosen vessel confesses this: ‘Not that I have
already attained this or am already perfect.’ Yet, soon after, the same man
who had denied that he is perfect, says: ‘Let those of us who are perfect be
thus minded,’ that he might show that according to the manner of this life
there is a certain perfection and

that to this perfection that also is counted, if one realizes that he is not yet
perfect. For what was more excellent among the ancient people than the
holy priests? And yet God commands them first to offer a

sacrifice for their own sins. And what was holier among the New Testament
people than the apostles?

And yet the Lord commanded them to pray: ‘Forgive us our debts.’
Therefore there is for all the godly who sigh under the burden of their
corrupted flesh and in the infirmity of this life the one hope that ‘we have
an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, and He is the expiation for our
sins.’”

In Contra Cresconium, Bk. 5, ch. 80, he says: “For a good name among
men a great number of witnesses who know me suffices; but in the presence
of God I do not dare to justify myself under the

gaze of the Almighty by my conscience alone, although I bear it without

trepidation against your accusations. And I look for an abundance of mercy
flowing out from Him rather than for an extreme examination of judgment,
considering that it is written, ‘When the righteous King will sit upon His
throne, who will boast that he has a pure heart, or that he is clean from
sins?’”

In Letter No. 29, to Jerome, Augustine says: “Charity is greater in some,

smaller in others, and in some there is none at all. However, a measure so
full that it cannot be increased is found in no one, so
long as man lives here on earth. But so long as it can be increased, the part
which is less than it should be, has the nature of a defect. Because of this
defect ‘there is not a righteous man on earth who does

good and never sins’; because of this defect ‘no man living will be justified
in the sight of God’; on account of this defect, ‘if we say we have no sin,
the truth is not in us’; on account of this also, no matter what we may have
accomplished, it is necessary for us to say: ‘Forgive us our debts,’ although

all our words, deeds, thoughts have already been forgiven in Baptism.”

Ambrose says in De Jacob et vita beata, ch. 6: “I will glory not because I
am righteous but because I am redeemed; I will glory not because I am free
from sins but because my sins are forgiven me. I will

not glory because I have done good nor because someone has done good to
me but because Christ is my

advocate with the Father and because the blood of Christ has been shed for
me.”

Augustine says in De verbis apostoli, Sermon 2: “But you say: ‘It suffices
me that I have obtained forgiveness of all sins in Baptism.’ Is then the
infirmity at an end because iniquity has been blotted out?

Surely, until your sluggishness is healed, you still say ‘Forgive us our debts’
to Him who will be gracious to all your iniquities. Finally, what remains
after the redemption from all corruption except the crown of righteousness?
That certainly remains. But let there not be in it or under it a head swelled
because it is to receive a crown. Note that He who redeemed your life from
corruption and who crowns

you does not desire to crown a swelled head. Now here you will say: ‘My
merits show it; my virtue has

done this; I am being rewarded according to what is owed me; it is not a

gift!’ Hear rather what the psalm says: ‘All men are liars.’ Hear what God
says: ‘Who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy.’”
In sermon 15 he says: “You have saved them for nothing. What is for
nothing? You find nothing why

you should save, but you find much why you should condemn.”

In his comment on Psalm 31 he says: “Who are the blessed? Not those in
whom God finds no sin. For

he finds that in all, for ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.’ If
therefore sins are found in all, it follows that they are not blessed, except
those whose sins are forgiven. This the apostle has therefore recommended
in these words: ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as

righteousness.’ Again, ‘If it is by grace, it is given freely.’ What does this

mean, ‘it is given freely?’ It means it costs nothing. You have done nothing
good, and forgiveness of sins is given you. Your works

are considered, and they are found evil; if God should reward those works
as they deserve, He would

surely damn you. God does not pay you the just punishment, but gives you
undeserved grace.”

Jerome says in Dialogus contra Pelagianos, Bk. 1: “Therefore we are

righteous when we confess ourselves sinners and when our righteousness
consists not in our own merit but in the mercy of God.”

Gregory says in Homily 7 on Ezekiel: “Therefore our righteous advocate

defends us as righteous in

the judgment, because we both know and accuse ourselves as unrighteous.

Therefore let us trust not in

our tears nor in our works but in the fact that we have an advocate.”

Bernard says in Sermon 5 on the words of Isaiah: “If there is some little
righteousness that is ours, it
is perhaps right, but it is not pure, unless perhaps we believe that we are
better than our fathers, who

affirmed no less truthfully than humbly: ‘All our righteousnesses are like
the cloth of a menstruant woman.’ For how could there be a pure
righteousness where guilt cannot yet be lacking?”

In Sermon 73 on the Song of Solomon he says: “If He should mark the

iniquities also of the elect,

who will stand? Hear what a holy and elect man says to God: ‘Thou didst
forgive the guilt of my sin.

Therefore let everyone who is godly offer prayer to Thee in a time of favor.’
Therefore also the saints

have need to pray on account of their sins, that they may be saved by mercy,
not trusting in their own

righteousness. For all have sinned and are in need of the mercy of God.”

Ambrose writes in De Jacob et vita beata: “We are not justified by works
but by faith, because the infirmity of our flesh is an impediment to works;
but the brightness of faith overshadows the error of

works and merits forgiveness of our faults.”

Augustine says in De civitate Dei, Bk. 10, ch. 22: “The forgiveness of sins
is accomplished through the Mediator of God and men, the Man Christ
Jesus, through whom, after He has made a cleansing from

sin, we are reconciled to God. This cleansing of sins is not made in this life
through our virtue but through divine compassion, through His tenderness,
not through our power; because the virtue, no matter how small, which is
called ours, is granted to us by His goodness. But we would be ascribing
much to ourselves in the flesh if we did not live under His forgiveness until
He directs us otherwise.”
Commenting on Ps. 130, Augustine says: “‘If Thou, O Lord, shouldst mark
iniquities, Lord, who could stand?’ Behold, it appears from what depth he
cries. For he cries under the weight and the billows

of his iniquities. He looked about himself, he looked about his life; he saw
it completely covered on all

sides with shameful and evil deeds; wherever he looked, he found nothing
good in himself; no joyful

sight of righteousness met him. And when he saw such great and so many
sins on all sides, and the multitude of his crimes, he exclaimed as one
greatly terrified: ‘If Thou, O Lord, shouldst mark iniquities, Lord, Lord,
who could stand?’ He did not say: ‘I could not stand,’ but, ‘Who could
stand?’

For he sees that almost our entire human life is barked at by sins, that all
consciences are accused by

their thoughts, that not a single pure heart is found which can assume that it
is righteous. And because

this cannot be found, therefore let every heart look to the mercy of the Lord,
its God, and say to God: ‘If Thou, Lord, shouldst mark iniquities, Lord,
who could stand?’ But what hope is there? ‘For with Thee

there is expiation.’ And what is that expiation except a sacrifice? And what
is the sacrifice except what

has been offered for us? The outpoured innocent blood has blotted out all
sins of the guilty. Therefore

‘with You there is forgiveness.’ For if there were no forgiveness with You,
if You only wanted to be the

judge, and were not willing to be merciful, if You should mark all our
iniquities and investigate them,
who could stand? Who would stand before you and say, ‘I am innocent?’
Who would stand in Your judgment? Therefore the only hope is that there is
forgiveness with You.”

Bernard says in Sermon 23 on the Song of Solomon: “Oh, only truly

blessed one, to whom the Lord

has not imputed sin. For who does not have sin? No one. For all have
sinned and lack the glory of God.

Yet who will accuse God’s elect? It is sufficient to me for all righteousness
only to have Him gracious

against whom alone I have sinned.” The same says in Sermon 61: “I
confidently take from the heart of

the Lord what is of myself lacking to me; for it overflows with mercy, nor
does it lack openings through

which it flows out.” Again: “I will remember Your righteousness alone; for
it is mine, for You have been made righteousness for me by God. Do I have
to fear that one may not suffice for both? It is not a

short cloak which, according to the prophet, could not cover two. Your
righteousness is an everlasting

righteousness. And a full and eternal righteousness shall cover both You
and me equally.”

How many most comforting statements of this kind I could adduce from the
meditations of

Augustine, Bernard, Anselm, Bonaventura, Gerson, from the

Contemplations for the Layman, as they are called, if the nature of our
undertaking would bear it! For there they show the practice and the use of
the article of justification most beautifully, because they place their
conscience before the tribunal of God; and they contain such delightful
statements that while reading them I feel myself touched by them
in my inmost heart; and I do not read anything in the writings of the fathers
with greater pleasure than their pious meditations. Also in the struggle of
death the fathers both learned to know and expressed that same true marrow
of the article of justification.

In De vita Augustini, ch. 27, Posidonius relates a memorable story:

“Augustine had indicated to us that he had heard a very wise and most
pious answer given by Ambrose of blessed memory when he was about to
die, which he praised and proclaimed often. For when that venerable man
was lying in his

last illness and was asked by the faithful who were standing with tears at his
bedside that he should request free passage for himself from the Lord of
life, he said to them: ‘I have not lived in such a way

that I am ashamed to live among you; but neither am I afraid to die, because
we have a good Lord.’ And

in this our Augustine as an old man admired and praised the polished and
balanced words. For it must

be understood that he said, ‘Neither am I afraid to die, because we have a

good Lord,’ lest it be believed that he had with too much confidence prided
himself on his own purified morals. However, ‘I have not

lived in such a way that I am ashamed to live among you,’ this he had said
with respect to what men

were able to know of a human being. For knowing the examination of

divine justice, he says that he has

more confidence in the good Lord than in his own merits. And to Him he
also said daily in the Lord’s

Prayer: ‘Forgive us our debts,’ etc.”

In the Life of Bernard, ch. 12, we read: “When he appeared to be drawing

his last breath, as his mental powers failed, he seemed to be presenting
himself before the tribunal of his Lord. But there was

also present over against him Satan, assailing him with wicked accusations.
But when he had said his

say, the man of God also had to speak on his part. Undaunted and
unperturbed, he said: ‘I confess that I

am not worthy and that I cannot obtain the kingdom of heaven through my
own merits. However, my

Lord is obtaining it with a twofold right, namely, through the inheritance of

the Father and by the merit

of His suffering; with the one He is content, and the other He gives to me;
because of this gift, since He vindicates this to me by right, I am not
disturbed.’ By this word the enemy was routed, etc.”

There is an exhortation of Anselm to a dying brother, written in the most

comforting words: “When a

brother seems to be in his death struggle, it is godly and advisable to

exercise him through a prelate or

other priest with written questions and exhortations. He may be asked in the
first place: ‘Brother, are you glad that you will die in the faith?’ Let him
answer: ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you confess that you did not live as

well as you should have?’ ‘I confess.’ ‘Are you sorry for this?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Are
you willing to better yourself if you should have further time to live?’ ‘Yes.’
‘Do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of

God, has died for you?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Do you believe that you cannot be saved
except through His death?’

‘Yes.’ ‘Do you heartily thank Him for this?’ ‘Yes.’ ‘Therefore always give
thanks to Him while your soul is in you, and on this death alone place your
whole confidence. Commit yourself wholly to this death, with this death
cover yourself wholly, and wrap yourself in it completely. And if the Lord
should

want to judge you, say: “Lord, I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ
between me and Thee and Thy

judgment; I will not contend with Thee in any other way.” If He says that
you have merited damnation,

say: “I place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between myself and my evil
deserts, and the merits of

His most worthy passion I bring in place of the merit which I should have
had, and, alas, do not have.’”

“He shall say further: ‘The death of our Lord Jesus Christ I set between me
and Thy wrath.’ Then he

shall say three times: ‘Into Thy hands, Lord, I commend my spirit.’ And the
gathering of those standing

about him shall respond: ‘Into Thy hands, Lord, we commend his spirit.’
And he shall die safely and shall not see death eternally.”

The same Anselm, in his Meditations, in a most beautiful passage places

himself before the tribunal of the divine judgment and shows that neither
the life nor the works of the regenerate can be pleaded

against the judgment of God, but only Christ the Mediator. He says: “My
life terrifies me. For when diligently examined, my whole life appears to
me either as sin or as unfruitfulness. And if there seems

to be some fruit in it, then it is either so counterfeit or imperfect, or in some

way corrupt, that it can

either fail76 to please or can actually displease God. It is certainly

altogether either sinful and damnable or unfruitful and worthy of contempt.
But why do I separate the unfruitful from the damnable?
Certainly, if it is unfruitful, it is damnable. For every tree which does not
bring forth good fruit will be cast into the fire. Therefore, O dry and useless
wood, worthy of eternal fires! What will you answer on

that Day, when an account is demanded of you, how you spent the whole
time of life that was given you

down to your last moment? O dread! On this side there will be the accusing
sins, on that side terrifying

justice; below appears the horrid chaos of hell, above the irate Judge;
inside, the burning conscience, outside, the burning world. Hardly shall the
righteous be saved. Where shall the sinner, thus caught, hide? To hide will
be impossible, to appear intolerable. Where can I find counsel? Where
salvation?

Who is He who is called the messenger of great counsel? It is Jesus. The

same is the Judge, in whose

hands I tremble. Revive, sinner; do not despair. Hope in Him whom you
fear, flee to Him from whom

you have fled. Jesus Christ, for the sake of this Thy name, do to me
according to this Thy name. Look

upon a poor man who calls upon Thy name. Therefore, Jesus, be Thou my
Savior for Thy name’s sake.

If Thou wilt admit me to the all-embracing bosom of Thy mercy, it will not
be more crowded on my account. It is true, my conscience has merited
damnation, and my repentance does not suffice for satisfaction; but it is
certain that Thy mercy overcomes every offense, etc.” However, there
would be no

end if I were to quote every instance of this kind which is found in the
writings of the fathers. I have
noted down these few in order to show that our teaching concerning
justification has the testimony of all

pious men of all times, and that not in rhetorical declamations nor in idle
disputations but in the serious exercises of repentance and faith, when the
conscience wrestles in trials with its own unworthiness, either before the
judgment of God or in the agony of death. For in this manner alone can the
doctrine of

justification be correctly understood as it is taught in Scripture.

76 All editions of the Examcn which were available to the translator with
the exception of the Preuss edition have: ut possit aut placere, aut displicere
Deo. The Preuss edition inserts non between aut and placere. It was
impossible for the translator to check the quotation in Anselm’s
Meditations. Our translation assumes that the Preuss text may be faithful to
the original because it yields excellent sense.

SECTION III

The Teaching of the Council of Trent Concerning Justification

1 Now that we have established and proved from Scripture the true teaching
concerning the justification of man before God to life eternal, we come to
the examination of the decrees of the Council of Trent on

justification. The manner in which this must be done will be easier and
plainer for us, because both the

bases of the doctrine and most of the things pertaining to the examination
have already been explained

in the preceding. For what remains we have Andrada, the interpreter of the
council.

Of the means, or instrument, by which it is offered to us by God and by

which the promise of justification is accepted by us we shall speak later
under the topic of faith. But concerning the preparation for justification (as
they call it) and the increase of justification, we shall note down certain
points at the end of this topic. Therefore we shall note the things in the
decree which pertain to justification itself.

The question in this debate is how a man is justified before God to eternal
life, that is, what that is

which we must bring before the judgment of God, which we must interpose
between divine wrath and

our sins, in order that on account of it we may be absolved from the

sentence of damnation, received

into grace by God, adopted as children, and received to life eternal.

2 To this question the Tridentine decrees give a twofold answer: (1) They
deny that the justification of a sinner is solely the remission of sins. And
they pronounce many anathemas if anyone says that men

are righteous before God through the righteousness of Christ, or that men
are justified solely through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or
solely through the remission of sins, or that they are justified by grace, that
is, alone through the favor of God, or the mercy of God, who forgives sins
for

Christ’s sake. (2) They affirm that the justification of the ungodly before
God to life eternal is not solely the remission of sins but also the
sanctification of the inner man. And they maintain that the only formal
cause of justification is the righteousness donated to us by God, by which
we are renewed in the spirit

of our mind, so that we are not only reputed to be, but truly are called, and
are, righteous, receiving righteousness in ourselves, which they say is the
love inhering in us, which the Holy Spirit works in us

through the merit of the passion of Christ.

3 If these Tridentine decrees are compared with what has been shown above
from Scripture, it will be clearer than the noonday sun that the very
understanding which is the constant teaching of the prophetic

and apostolic Scripture concerning the justification of a man before God to

life eternal is condemned with many dreadful curses by the Council of
Trent, namely, that our sins are forgiven us and that we are

received into grace, adopted as children, and received to life eternal solely
by divine mercy on account

of the merit, obedience, or righteousness of Christ.

This also will be clear that, under the threat of many curses, they want to
ascribe the justification of a man before God to life eternal to that same
thing from which Scripture removes and takes it away with

the clearest statements, namely, to the newness, love, or good works of the
regenerate. Because this has

been proved above with many very clear testimonies of Scripture, I refer the
reader to them. For if he

will only undertake a comparison, both negatively and positively, of that

teaching which has been handed down in Scripture with that which is set
forth in the decrees of the Synod of Trent, he will see

that these are diametrically opposed to each other; for what Scripture
denies, that the Council of Trent

asserts to be our justification before God to life eternal. And again, what
Scripture affirms, that the

council not only denies but violently condemns, so that we can truly declare
that it is the kind of council which is described in Ps. 2: “They have
gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ.”

4 The craftiness with which the architects of these decrees have disguised
the matter itself with a certain show of right, in order that they might not at
once be detected by the more inexperienced, is worthy of observation. For
if they had put the issue in question thus: What there is, on account of
which

God is made gracious and forgiving to us; on what thing our adoption with
God depends; on account of

what we may stand and be absolved before the tribunal of God, that we may
be heirs of God and be accepted to life eternal, persons of moderate
endowment would see, because of the great light of the Gospel, and the ears
of many pious persons in the papal kingdom itself would shudder at the
voices of

the monks, if the propitiation, adoption, the inheritance of life eternal were
ascribed to our own works.

Because they nevertheless wanted by all means to retain the ambiguity of

the word “justification,” it

seemed most convenient to the council to cover up somehow the shameful

character of the monastic opinion. Of this ambiguity we have spoken in the
beginning. Secondly, for “our own works” they have

substituted the words “sanctification,” “renewal,” “inherent righteousness,”

etc. Thirdly, they have so deceitfully drawn up the chapters and canons of
the decrees, as if our teaching excluded sanctification,

renewal, love, and the other gifts of newness which the Holy Spirit works in
the regenerate, in such a

way that they neither follow nor are present in the regenerate, so that
because of our churches the decrees had to be repeated which at one time
had been formulated against the Pelagians in the Council

of Mileve, 77 namely, that Christ merited for us not only the remission of
sins but also this, that we are on account of His merit renewed by the Holy
Spirit and that the believers, through faith, for Christ’s sake, receive not
only remission of sins but also the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies and renews
the heart.

But we have said before, and it has already been repeated a number of
times, that this is not the point of the controversy. For we by no means deny
but clearly and diligently preach both benefits of the Mediator, both the
reconciliation and the renewal, in that order in which the Scripture teaches
them.

It is therefore a deceitful trick that with a sidelong thrust they charge our
churches as if we excluded

these things in such a way that they neither follow nor are present, although
the real question in this controversy is whether we are absolved before the
tribunal of God, have an appeased and gracious God,

are adopted as children, and are received to life eternal on account of the
merit, obedience, or righteousness of Christ or on account of our newness,
which follows and is begun, as we have noted down a number of things in
the beginning of this topic concerning those deceitful tricks and concerning

the real question at issue in this controversy. For because they see that also
the unlearned notice that in the doctrine of justification the monks and
postil writers depart far from the teaching of Scripture in their crude
writings and opinions, therefore it was necessary for the Tridentine fathers
to seek a different and more subtle device, when in the great light which
shines on men in our time from the reading of the

Scripture they wanted to deceive and bewitch the eyes of certain people.

5 But against this deceitful trick we must always plead and repeat until we
are weary of it what the principal question is in this controversy concerning
the justification of a man before God to life eternal, as we have set it forth
repeatedly. And yet, in the midst of all these deceitful tricks, if one would
consider them a little more closely, he would notice quite plainly whither
those Tridentine decrees tend.
For in ch. 4 they say that in this dispute about justification the question is
how a man is transferred from that state in which he is a child of wrath into
the state of grace and adoption of children of God. And in ch. 7 they say
they are treating of that justification by which a man is changed from an
enemy to a friend of God, so that he is an heir according to the hope of
eternal life. But this justification they define as being not only the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ nor only the remission of sins but
also

the sanctification and renewal of the inner man. And this they soon explain
more clearly when they say

that love is the inherent righteousness and that this is that shining and
immaculate garment which the

regenerate must bring before the tribunal of Christ in order that they may
have life eternal. Without

dissimulation, therefore, they take this away from Christ and ascribe it to
our love, that we are justified by it, that is, that we are on account of it
absolved before the judgment seat of God and received to life eternal. But
what happens to Paul, who attributes our justification to the mercy of God
and to the merit

of the obedience, passion, and satisfaction of Christ?

6 But hear how the Council of Trent frustrates those most comforting
statements of Scripture. They

say that Christ by His most holy passion has merited not that the mercy of
God on account of that satisfaction and obedience should absolve us from
the sentence of damnation, receive us into grace, adopt us as children, and
accept us to life eternal. But they say that this is the whole merit of Christ,
that on account of it the mercy of God pours into us the new quality of
inherent righteousness, which is love,
that we may be justified by it. This means that we are absolved before the
judgment of God, adopted as

sons, and received into life eternal not because of the obedience of Christ
but on account of our love, so that the mercy of God is only the efficient
cause, and the obedience of Christ only the meritorius cause,

that from these we may have in ourselves some inherent thing which we can
plead against the judgment

of God, in which we must trust, that on account of it, and not on account of
Christ, we are absolved,

adopted as children of God, and receive the inheritance of life eternal.

However, what Paul says, that we

are justified gratis, they interpret in this way, that the quality of love is
freely given and infused in us, through which we are pronounced righteous
to life eternal before the tribunal of God, not on account of

our preceding merits, but for Christ’s sake. But that the reader may rightly
understand from where these

things have been taken, let him compare the passage of Bonaventura, in the
third of the sentences, distinction 19, question 1, where he says: “Both the
death and the resurrection of Christ blot out our transgressions, and both
justify. And yet to neither of these can the causality of justification, or of
the remission of sins, be properly attributed. Yet it has to some extent the
quality of a cause, namely, by way of an intervening merit, which is
reduced to the material cause. For the formal cause is grace, that is, the love
which God infuses, etc.”

7 These things concerning the trick which the architects, or

(“wordsmiths”), of the

decrees employed, if rightly observed, contain many warnings. Nor is it

necessary to add a special refutation. For in the very beginning I set forth
the foundations of the doctrine of justification as found in the prophets,
evangelists, and apostles in order that the same things might not have to be
repeated later in the refutation and in order that it might be possible to judge
from the comparison to what place

and class those things which were decreed concerning justification in the
Council of Trent should be judged to belong, for they expressly and
diametrically conflict with the constant teaching of Scripture.

8 These things can, indeed, be noticed in the Tridentine decree itself. For
what the more hidden mysteries are besides, and what reasons were urged
in the council, from which that statement of the decree was finally
constructed, the explanations of Andrada unfold to us. Especially, however,
the gloss

(as it is called) is noteworthy what and how they understood the remission
of sins in the Council of Trent. For someone might think that this was some
kind of liberality or indulgence of the council, that it appears to place
justification in part in the gratuitous remission, or nonimputation, of sins on
account of the merit of Christ. But hear, good reader, how Andrada explains
the mind and the opinion of the council, namely, in this sense and with
these words: “Because that man cannot be said to be just who is

wholly defiled with the stains of sin, therefore God infuses love into man,
through the strength and power of which all faults are washed away, crimes
are quenched, sins are expelled and perish, and every

vestige of foul deeds is blotted out. And for this reason justification has
been placed more in the love

which embraces the divine law than in the pardoning of sins; or rather, that
justification must be placed

in sanctification itself. And that it is love which makes a man wholly

pleasing and acceptable to God.”

9 Andrada indeed explains these things in such a way that he shows clearly
that the decree of the council is only a paraphrase of what the masters of
sentences maintain, namely, that for the remission of

guilt the infusion of grace is required, that is, of love, through which sin is
expelled, as for the expulsion

of darkness the illumination of the air is required. For they imagine that
God cannot be appeased with respect to an offense, unless sin is expelled
from man, and in its place the new quality of love is infused, to which God
has respect and remits the offense and holds the man beloved and accepted
for life eternal. It is for this reason that they call love that which makes man
pleasing. Thus the Scholastics teach. Andrada plainly shows that the
Tridentine decrees concerning justification must be understood in

this sense.

Let the reader diligently observe, therefore, what he sees and learns from
the interpretation of Andrada, namely, that the Council of Trent had only
this purpose, that it might repeat and strengthen the

opinions of the Scholastics concerning justification and, in sum, that

whatever has been maintained concerning justification and in whatever
manner it has been maintained in the papal kingdom by the Scholastic
writers, monks, writers of postils, summists, 78 etc., should remain
unalterable and be considered sacrosanct, except that they judged that the
words had to be altered a little so that they might present some show of
reformation, at least to the more inexperienced.

10 But let us ponder a little the mind of the council concerning the
remission of sins as delivered to us through the interpretation of Andrada.
With words they concede that the remission of sins belongs to

justification and that divine mercy remits sins for Christ’s sake. Now, on
account of the simplicity with

which we are accustomed to the language of the Holy Spirit and the words
of Scripture, we understand
this in this way, that the Son of God, the Mediator, has by His passion and
death earned for us remission

of sins, so that the Father does not impute their sins to the believers on
account of the merit, satisfaction, and obedience of Christ and that we
(according to the saying of Anselm) should by faith interpose the

death of our Lord Jesus Christ between our sins and the wrath of God when
we ask for and seek to receive the forgiveness of sins.

But the Council of Trent, through it’s interpreter Andrada, publicly declares
that this is not its mind

and understanding but that Christ has only merited for us the infusion of
love, that through the strength

and power of this our inhering love sins are expelled, extinguished, and
blotted out and that in this way

God finally remits the offense and becomes reconciled and gracious when
He sees every vestige of sin

extinguished in man through love and altogether destroyed (for I am using

Andrada’s words). He adds

also this, that “on account of the infused love we are called righteous, yes,
after our sins have been destroyed through the service of our love, we are
reconciled into the grace of God.”

11 Therefore, whoever wants to receive the remission of sins must,

according to the teaching of the Council of Trent, interpose between his sins
and the offended God not the satisfaction of Christ but his

inherent love; and then finally he may believe that God, having remitted the
offense, is certainly reconciled and favorable to him when love has so
expelled and destroyed sin that every vestige of it has

been blotted out in man; for these are Andrada’s words. Thus, according to
this same interpretation, Christ has not, through His obedience, merited for
those who believe in Him salvation and eternal life,

but He has only merited this, that for His sake the inherent love is infused
into us, and that it is this finally which makes man not only pleasing but
“wholly pleasing” to God (for I am repeating Andrada’s

words), “not only accepted but wholly accepted to life eternal.”

12 But here Osius objects: “Do you Lutherans then teach that sin is remitted
in such a way that it remains in man without contrition, aversion to it, and
mortification, after the reconciliation, wholly in

the same way as before?” I reply: Our doctrine is known, that we teach that
it is necessary that there be

present in man conversion, contrition, detestation of sin, a good intention,

etc. We teach also that it is necessary for the regenerate to mortify the
actions of the flesh through the Spirit (Rom. 8); that the flesh with its faults
and lusts should be crucified and mortified more and more (Gal. 5:13–26);
that sin may

not reign (Rom. 6). However, we have learned from Scripture that the
remission of sins, to be certain

and firm, does not rest on our contrition, detestation, mortification, etc., but
that it rests on the satisfaction and merit of Christ, that for its sake sins are
remitted to us. And although sin does not

continue to reign or to ravage the conscience in those who are reconciled,

yet we have learned from the teaching of Scripture that God remits the
offense and is reconciled and propitious to us not because He

finds no vestige of sin at all in us any longer (for Paul says, after his
regeneration: “In my flesh sin dwells”) but because for Christ’s sake He
does not impute sin but remits it. For if we say we have no

sin, we deceive ourselves, but if we confess our sins, He is just so that He

forgives sins.
13 I shall add nothing more in this clear matter, for the pious reader sees
that remission of sins, the adoption, and finally salvation itself and life
eternal are removed and taken away from the satisfaction

and obedience of Christ and transferred to our virtues; but to Christ, the
Mediator, this only is left, that we, for the sake of His merit, receive love.
But afterwards they imagine that it is the strength and power of love which
extinguishes sin, so that in this way finally, on account of our love, because
it destroys

sin, we receive the remission of sins. They add also that this is the strength
and power of love, that it

renders us wholly pleasing to God and accepted for life eternal. Therefore
we shall exclaim truly and

with righteous sorrow with Paul: “You are severed from Christ, you who
would be justified by your love, which is the sum and substance of the
Law” (Gal. 5:4). “Faith has been destroyed and the promise

abolished if the inheritance is by the Law, the sum of which is love” (Rom.
4:14). And I would indeed

not exchange this for any price, that the snares and tricks of the Council of
Trent, which they concealed

with marvelous coverings of words, are brought to light in this way. For
when, according to Andrada,

the mind of the council concerning the remission of sins is set forth nakedly
in the way we have shown,

then it is manifest to anyone who is only willing to consider it how it

conflicts diametrically with Scripture; how shameful and blasphemous it is
toward the most holy merit of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose throne our own
virtues are commanded to invade, after He Himself has been cast down
from it,
in order that they may be our propitiation for sin and the price of life
eternal. From this interpretation of Andrada I now finally understand what
the Tridentine decree is after when it declares that justification

consists of two parts, remission of sins and renewal, because they

nevertheless say not long afterward

that the sole formal cause of justification is the renewal, or love. For that is,
according to Andrada’s interpretation, the formal cause both of the
remission of sins and of the acceptance to life eternal.

77 The Council of Mileve in North Africa was held A. D. 416. It was called
to deal with the heretical teachings of Pelagius and was attended by 58
Numidian bishops.

78 Summist, a mediaeval Scholastic writer of a summa, or treatise, in

theology or in some other area of knowledge which attempted to bring
together the available knowledge on a specific subject.

SECTION IV

The Arguments of Andrada

1 Now that we have sufficiently perceived the opinion of the council

concerning justification, both from the words of the decree themselves, and
from the interpretation of Andrada, let us hear the arguments

which Andrada learned at the Council of Trent. His first argument is taken
from the word “justify.” He

contends that this is the same as to give form to, fill, and equip the soul with
the infused new quality of inherent righteousness, which is love. But this
argument has been clearly refuted above.

2 His second argument is: In the conversion or reconciliation of man there

is present not only faith, not only the remission of sins, or only the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ, but also contrition, renewal, hope,
love, etc. Therefore justification is not only the remission of sins, but also
the other virtues belong to justification. I reply: It is true that no one is
reconciled unless contrition goes before, and when a man is reconciled, he
is also at the same time renewed. But it does not follow that the things

which are simultaneous, or happen at the same time, all possess the same
peculiar nature and the same

office. For a person simultaneously has feet, eyes, ears, yet it does not
follow that he sees with his feet and hears with his eyes. So in justification
this is the question, what that is through which and on account of which we
are reconciled to God, adopted, and accepted to life eternal. But this the
Scripture

attributes solely to the merit of Christ. Also, among the parts of conversion
themselves there is a definite order. For reconciliation must go before, and
afterward love follows with the other virtues which belong to the effects of
justification. Andrada, however, weaves a long chain: “Justification is not
without reconciliation. Reconciliation depends on the love of God toward
us. But the way of the love of

God is that He equips those whom He has undertaken to love with very
great benefits, such as the gifts

of love and of the other virtues.” And from this he concludes that
justification is by no means possible

without the inherent gifts of God. And consequently he contends that

justification consists of two parts,

namely, reconciliation and the other new virtues.

3 But see how dull, really, is the subtlety of this orator. In justification one
asks on what account God is reconciled to us, that we may have Him
appeased and propitious. But it is an effect of this reconciliation that God
equips the regenerate with the gifts of love and of other virtues.

Out of these effects, Andrada, in his subtlety, makes the cause and form of
justification. We, indeed,
do not deny these and other effects of justification, but we do not say that
the effects are the causes. Nor should Andrada be angry with us because we
do not allow ourselves to be persuaded of such things by

his boastful speech. For John reminds us that, though both things are true,
namely, that God loves us and that we should in turn love both God and our
neighbor, yet these things must be distinguished, as to

cause and effect, 1 John 4:10–11: “In this is love, not that we loved God but
that He loved us first …

Therefore we ought to love Him and our neighbor.”

4 His third argument is: From the nature of righteousness as explained in

the divine writings the power and nature of justification must be sought. But
the Scripture teaches that in the regenerate the Holy Spirit begins the
obedience to the Law, or conformity with the Law, which is called
righteousness.

Therefore we are justified by that righteousness. I reply: The major

proposition pleases; let us follow it, namely, that the nature of righteousness
as Scripture explains it shows us the true nature of justification.

However, Scripture speaks about obedience to the Law, or about this

righteousness, in two ways: (1)

that Christ, by the fullest satisfaction and the most perfect obedience
fulfilled the Law for us and that

thus He was made our righteousness; (2) that the Holy Spirit begins some
conformity with the Law of God in the regenerate (Jer. 31:31–34; Rom. 7)
and that this conformity is also called righteousness (Rom. 6:13; 1 John
2:29), which is not badly defined by Andrada as a quality of the mind which
leads

to obedience to the divine law and will. However, the question is which
righteousness, that of Christ or
our own, is sufficient and worthy, so that we can plead it against the
judgment of God, in order that on

account of it we may be absolved before the tribunal of God, obtain

remission of sins, be pronounced

righteous, be received into grace, adopted as sons, and accepted into the
inheritance of life eternal. But here the Scripture explains the nature of the
righteousness, namely, that the inherent and incipient righteousness of the
regenerate in this life is neither perfect nor altogether pure on account of the
flesh which adheres to them, and therefore it cannot endure the severity of
the examination of the divine judgment, and on this account it also cannot
justify the regenerate. But it teaches that the righteousness of Christ is
sufficient and worthy, because it is wholly ample, perfect, and complete,
and indeed, presented for us in order that we may on account of it and
through it be able to stand in the judgment of

God, be absolved, received into grace, adopted and accepted to life eternal,
as has been shown above by

many very clear testimonies of Scripture. In this way the nature of

righteousness as the Scripture explains it shows the true nature of
justification.

5 But Andrada blasphemes this righteousness of Christ, the Mediator,

imputed to us by faith, as being invented, false, and counterfeit. However,
they have no other argument except that they set against it the argument of
incongruity from natural and moral philosophy, namely, that it is
incongruous (as Osius says) to say that something is the form of anything
which is not in that thing itself. As if I were to say, that a wall is white with
the whiteness which inheres in my garment, not in the wall; or that Cicero
was

brave with a bravery which did not inhere in his own soul but in the soul of
Achilles. But what else do

these arguments show except that the papalists, who in the doctrine of
justification have forsaken the light of the Gospel, are seeking a sense
which conforms to and agrees with philosophic opinions, or at

least with legal opinions concerning righteousness? But the Gospel declares
that it is wisdom hidden in

a mystery, which none of the princes of this world understood (1 Cor. 2:7–
8). Therefore, since we have

sure and firm foundations for our understanding in Scripture, we need not
worry even though it should

run into what amounts to an incongruity in philosophy.

6 Fourthly: Christ has merited for us not only remission of sins, or only the
imputation of His righteousness, but He has earned also this for us, that we,
renewed, by the Holy Spirit, may have the new obedience, or inherent
righteousness. Therefore justification is not only the forgiveness of sins. I
reply: We confess that Christ has merited both for us. But with the Scripture
we say that though this our

inherent righteousness has its place, its praises, and also its rewards,
nevertheless, because it is imperfect and unclean in this life on account of
the flesh, it cannot stand in the judgment of God, so that we should be for
its sake absolved from the sentence of damnation, adopted as children, and
accepted to

life eternal; that therefore a perfect and complete righteousness is necessary

for us, on account of which and through which we may be justified before
God to life eternal. This the Scripture indeed sets before

us in the satisfaction and obedience of Christ the Mediator, if we apprehend

it by faith. For “to all who

received Him, who believed in His name, He gave power to become

children of God” (John 1:12), and

(Gal. 4:4–5) “born under the Law to redeem those who were under the Law,
so that we might receive
adoption as sons.”

7 Fifth: Andrada feels that his and the council’s opinion is wholly
overthrown by the lightning of the Pauline argument concerning exclusory
faith, without the deeds of the Law, in which he sets faith and

the works of the Law against each other in such a way that he not only takes
away justification to life

eternal from the works of the Law and gives it to faith but that he declares:
If the inheritance is through the Law, then “faith is null, and the promise is
void” (Rom. 4:14); If it is of works, then it is no longer by grace,
“otherwise grace would no longer be grace,” nor would a work be a work
(Rom. 11:6); If you

are justified by the Law, “you are severed from Christ”; “you have fallen
away from grace”; “Christ will be of no advantage to you” (Gal. 5:4, 2). For
Paul makes such a complete and absolute contrast between

faith and works, grace and works, the merit of Christ and our works, in the
article of justification that

the ends cannot in any way be united or come together; but when one is
affirmed, the other is at once

excluded and ruled out. But I say expressly that he does this in the article of
justification, for otherwise, outside of this article, there is the best possible
agreement between faith and good works. For faith working through love is
the mother of good works, and the works are acceptable through faith.

8 Because Andrada therefore senses that Paul fulminates in this manner in

the article of justification against our works, he looks about for various
loopholes in order that he may be able to escape. For he

sees that so long as that absolute antithesis of Paul between faith and the
works of the Law stands, the

Tridentine decree cannot stand.

First he says that only the works of the Ceremonial Law can be understood,
that only these are excluded from the article of justification. But because
this is manifestly wrong and is indeed also refuted by Augustine and
Jerome, he does not dare to take his stand on this reply. For Paul in this
disputation manifestly adds the Moral Law to the Levitical ceremonies and
thus disputes concerning the

whole Law and concerning the works of the whole Law. Therefore Andrada
finally escapes under the

pretense that Paul excludes from the article of justification only those works
which the unregenerate perform at the command of the Law, solely through
the powers of free will, without faith, without grace

and the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

But the works which arise from faith and are a fruit of the Spirit he
represents as being so necessary

for justification that without them the faith which lays hold of Christ can by
no means justify (I am quoting Andrada’s words). But the Pauline argument
clearly proves that this fabrication of the papalists

is vain, false, and contrary to the mind of Paul.

9 Abraham, who is the universal example of justification, had, after his

calling (Gen. 11–15), many good works, and these, being the products of
faith (Heb. 11:8–10), were fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22).

And yet Paul in the article of justification applies his exclusory statement
also to the works of Abraham:

“Not to him who works, but to him who believes, faith is counted as
righteousness.” Likewise he says

that these words apply to Abraham when he was already regenerate, that
that man is blessed to whom
God imputes righteousness without works. Likewise: If the inheritance is by
the Law, “faith is null, and

the promise is void.” This testimony can be eluded by no sophistry. Thus

the regenerate Paul, when he

says, “I am not aware of anything against myself,” had many good works,
brought forth by faith, and

yet he says: “But I am not thereby acquitted.” The renewed Daniel says:
“Not through our

righteousness, etc.” But these things have been explained more fully above.

10 Therefore when Paul says that a man is justified by faith without the
works of the Law, he understands the exclusion not only of the works of the
unregenerate but also of those works which the

regenerate do by faith through the Holy Spirit. For as he sets against each
other doing and believing, the man who works and the man who believes,
so he also sets against each other faith and the works of the

Law, or the righteousness of the Law and the righteousness of faith. And he
defines the righteousness of

the Law as when a man does that which is written in the Law in order that
he may be justified by it and

live eternally. But that the discipline of reason, when it does some works of
the Law solely through the

powers of free will, does not justify, also the papalists concede. But David,
when already regenerated

through faith by the Holy Spirit, begins a certain obedience to the Law,
doing the things which are written in the Law. Now I ask: Was David
justified through this obedience, through this righteousness of
the Law, through these works? Paul in Rom. 4:1–8 expressly denies this
concerning both Abraham and

David, also after their renewal. Therefore it is certain that Paul means by
the righteousness of the Law

when a man, either unregenerate or regenerate, by his obedience or his

works does those things which

are written in the Law. Paul declares that through this righteousness of the
Law no man is justified in

this life, because on account of the flesh it is imperfect and unclean also in
the regenerate.

But the righteousness of faith is to believe that Christ the Mediator has
satisfied the Law for us for

righteousness to everyone who believes (Rom. 10:4). Therefore the

antithesis of Paul stands in general

about all works, both of the regenerate and of the unregenerate: If it is of

works, then it is not by grace; but if it is by grace, then it is no longer of
works. However, these things have been explained at greater length above.

11 Therefore it is manifest that the whole teaching of Paul has been

corrupted when Andrada pretends without proof that both kinds of
righteousness, that of the Law and that of faith, consist in our observance of
the Law and that they do not differ with respect to the duties, but only with
respect to the doers, namely, that when it is done by the unregenerate, then
it is the righteousness of the Law; but the

righteousness of faith is said to consist in this, that it leads the regenerate to

the obedience and observance of those things which are written in the Law,
so that the righteousness of faith is the obedience of the regenerate to the
Law, when love, which embraces the whole Law, is infused into the

believers through the Holy Spirit.

But Paul in the article of justification sets up these “opposing parts: It is the
righteousness of the Law when a man himself, by his own works, does that
which is written in the Law; it is the righteousness of

faith when a man by faith apprehends and has Christ, who through His most
perfect obedience to the

Law has made satisfaction for us, in order that He might be our
Righteousness (Jer. 23:6). But to remove all misrepresentations, we add this
declaration: It is, indeed, completely true that the Holy Spirit writes the
Law into the hearts of the regenerate, so that by faith, through the Holy
Spirit, they begin to keep the Law; but from Paul we add that the obedience
to the Law, which is begun in us, is not that righteousness which we can
plead against the judgment of God, in order that we may on account of it be

justified before the tribunal of God to life eternal. For on account of the
flesh it does not satisfy the Law in this life, because it is imperfect and
defiled.

This also is true, that faith leads those who have been regenerated by the
Holy Ghost to make a beginning of obedience and of the observance of the
Moral Law. However, it does not on this account

and for this reason justify, but because it apprehends and possesses Christ,
who, on account of the fullest satisfaction and the most perfect obedience,
which He rendered to the Law for us, is our righteousness, as we shall show
in the topic about faith.

12 Andrada’s sixth argument: In Rom. 4 Paul has separated justification so

far from the remission of sins that He judged that the latter was to be
ascribed to the death of Christ, but the former to His resurrection. Therefore
justification is not only the remission of sins.

I reply: Paul indeed says, Rom. 6, that the death of Christ signifies the
mortification of sin in us and

that His resurrection signifies the new life, that, as Christ was raised from
the dead, so we too should
walk in newness of life. However, in the article of justification Paul does
not so separate the death and

the resurrection of Christ that he ascribes justification not to the death but
only to the resurrection of Christ. For he says, Rom. 5:9: “Being justified by
His blood”; Rom. 3:24: “They are justified …

through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as
an expiation by His blood,

to be received by faith”; Rom. 8:34: “It is God who justifies; who is to

condemn? It is Christ Jesus who

died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God,
etc.” And in Acts 10:39–43,

and 13:37–39, remission of sins is ascribed simultaneously both to the death

and to the resurrection of

Christ. 1 Cor. 15:17: “If Christ has not been raised … you are still in your
sins.”

13 Therefore this forced separation of Andrada, for it is that rather than a

division, is not true. But this teaching is of the weightiest import, that Paul
says: “Christ died for our sins and was raised for our justification.” For that
Christ might be our justification, it was necessary that He should not only
bear

the punishment of our sins, but that He should also fulfill the Law with so
perfect an obedience that it

might suffice for the righteousness of the whole world. And this whole
action of the Mediator turns on

this, whether the Father would accept that satisfaction and obedience of the
Son for the whole world.

But this the Father showed especially in this, that He did not leave in death,
the Son, whom He had smitten for the sins of the people, but raised Him
from the dead and set Him at the right hand of His

majesty. And this is what Paul says, 1 Cor. 15:17: “If Christ has not been
raised … you are still in your

sins,” that is, if death had overcome Christ and the Father had not accepted
His satisfaction for us but

had left Him in death, then we would not have remission of sins for Christ’s
sake.

14 When, therefore, Paul wanted to explain, Rom. 4:24–25, what that

righteousness is which is imputed to the believers without their own works,
or what faith must apprehend that it may be imputed

for righteousness, he says: To those who believe in Him who raised Jesus
from the dead, who was delivered to death for our transgressions and was
raised again for our justification. For that is our righteousness: (1) that the
Son of God became a Mediator for us, being obedient to the Father to death;

(2) that the Father accepted that satisfaction and obedience of the Son for
our reconciliation and propitiation, which He showed by His resurrection.
For this reason Paul, in the imputation of righteousness; connects the death
and the resurrection of Christ. This reason should also be considered,

that Christ is our Savior not only with respect to merit but also with respect
to efficacy, because as our Advocate he intercedes and appears before the
face of God for us that we may be saved from wrath by

His life (1 John 2:1; Rom. 8:26; Heb. 7:25; Rom. 5:2). For this reason also
Paul connects the resurrection of Christ with His death; and he does not say,
as Andrada quotes: “He died for the remission of sins and was raised for
justification,” but: “He died for our sins, and was raised for our
justification.”

15 Seventh argument: It is worth the effort also to learn a new grammar

from Andrada. He cannot deny that Paul often uses the word imputation in
the article of justification. However, by virtue of his
power, by which he acts in the name of the council, he keeps telling us that
the imputation of the righteousness of Christ means nothing else than that,
on account of the merit of Christ, love, or inherent righteousness, is poured
into the regenerate. And here I happen to remember that some years ago, in
the

Osiandristic controversy, I heard, not without laughter, a certain man

philosophizing that the word putare together with its compounds is a word
belonging to gardening. As therefore amputare (“to cut off”) means to
remove something through putationem (“cutting”), so irnputare justitiam
(“to impute righteousness”) means to insert, implant, and infuse new
qualities into a man.

At that time we laughed at these ineptitudes, but now … this wisdom is set
forth in the very Council

of Trent, and that with a proud air, that to impute righteousness means
nothing else than to infuse qualities of righteousness. It is indeed a piece of
bragging impudence to keep saying such things, as if

they were ruling over beasts, since never in the whole realm of nature has
anyone even in a fever dreamed of such a meaning for the word “impute,”
for then to impute sin would be to instill iniquity into someone. However,
because the papalists feel that they are very hard pressed by the emphasis
and

peculiarity of the word “impute,” since they cannot get rid of it through a
true refutation, they judge it to be sufficient if they in some way trample it
under foot and wear it down, for they have learned from Fabius that what
cannot be refuted should be worn down. 79

16 It will be useful for the reader to have some examples of how they play
with that word. Osius says that the term “imputed righteousness” is a new
one, not heard formerly; likewise, that the righteousness

of Christ as imputed to us is not found either in the canonical books or in

the books of the orthodox fathers. But the 11th Tridentine canon does not
dare to deny this but only censures it, “if anyone says
that a man is justified solely by the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ.” Therefore they admit that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to
the believers.

The Jesuits invent this interpretation: Faith is imputed for righteousness.

For God holds the faith which is found in men worthy that there should be
conferred upon it, or infused into it, inherent righteousness by which men
are justified.

Andrada pronounces with the air of a teacher that the imputing of

righteousness does not mean anything else than that the quality of
righteousness is infused. Therefore the true meaning of the word

“impute” must be observed diligently.

17 There can be no doubt that it is a term which indicates a relationship to

other things. For in an imputation there is required the person who imputes,
the one to whom it is imputed, what is imputed,

and for what it is imputed. And sometimes it is employed in such a way that
the basis of imputation (to

use the terminology of the dialecticians) is something inherent in those to

whom the imputation is made.

The end may be an accusation or a reward. And between these two, whether
the imputation is for an accusation or for a reward, there is no relation. Thus
in 2 Sam. 19:19, Shimei says: “Let not the king

impute iniquity to me.” In Rom. 5:13 we read: “Where there is no law, sin
is not imputed,” in 2 Tim.

4:16: “All deserted me. May it not be charged against them!”

The question now is whether the love inherent in the regenerate is in the
same manner imputed to them for righteousness, that for its sake the
inheritance of eternal life is awarded to them. And for this the papalists
strongly contend, but without Scripture. We, however, since the matter is
difficult, must seek the firm and solid foundations which Paul shows in
Rom. 4. For when he says, “Now to one who

works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due,” he shows that
there is a certain imputation

which has and looks to a basis in him to whom the imputation is made, as
when it is made on account of

works. And this imputation, he says, is made not according to grace but
according to what is due. But he

declares that Abraham was not justified before God by this kind of
imputation. But he adds: “To one who does not work but trusts Him who
justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.”

And this imputation, he says, is made not according to what is due but
according to grace. He affirms

also that it was by this imputation that Abraham was justified.

18 Therefore Paul shows that he is using the word “imputation” in the

article of justification in this sense, when in the one to whom the imputation
is made he does not find or consider a basis because of

which it is done, but it is done from the gratuitous mercy of God without
merit, yes, contrary to what we

have deserved. For when he says that by this imputation the ungodly is
justified, he shows that there is

in us a contrary basis, to which guilt rather than righteousness should be

imputed, if God wanted to enter into judgment with us. And later, when he
says that that man is blessed to whom God imputes righteousness without
works, he shows plainly that the basis of this imputation is not in the one to
whom the imputation is made, for he says: “It is imputed without works.”
Yet Abraham had at that time

many good works. But Paul expressly says that this inherent newness was
not the basis (as the dialecticians speak), that by reason of it and its
worthiness righteousness was imputed to him for blessedness. For he says:
“Without works righteousness is imputed.” But that imputation is made by
gratuitous mercy. If, however, it were imputed to him who works, it would
no longer be according to

grace but according to debt.

19 And in this sense, when there is in the one to whom the imputation is
made no basis for the imputation but its opposite, the Hebrew

and the Greek

, is frequently used. Gen. 31:15:

“Are we not regarded (

) by him as foreigners?” Num. 18:27 says of the Levites who had no part of

the land: “It shall be reckoned to you as though it were the grain of the
threshing floor.”

Ps. 144:3: “What is the son of man that Thou dost regard him?” Rom. 2:26:
“His uncircumcision will

be regarded as circumcision.”

20 But does God impute righteousness to believers without any basis

whatever? Certainly He Himself says that this is an abomination (Prov.
17:15; Is. 5:23). And that basis is indeed not in us, for

righteousness is imputed without works according to Rom. 4. And there,

finally, Paul clearly shows what and where the basis of this imputation is. It
is imputed, he says, “to us who believe in Him that
raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our
trespasses and raised for our justification,” that is, the satisfaction and
obedience of Christ is the basis out of regard for which, and by

reason and worthiness of which, God by grace imputes righteousness to the

believers.

21 And so we have the complete relation. The basis is the righteousness of

Christ. The object is the believing person, to whom the imputation for
righteousness and blessedness is made. That which confers the gift is the
mercy of God, which imputes righteousness without works. And thus faith
is imputed for righteousness not because of its worthiness as a virtue but
because it apprehends the merit

of Christ and the mercy of God in the promise of the Gospel, in which is
found both the basis and the

conferring of the imputation of righteousness for blessedness.

22 This observation concerning the word imputation is very clear, and the
reader will understand from it why the papalists are so set against this word
and why they work so hard to corrupt it, for it most beautifully illustrates
and supports the whole topic of justification. For when they set against it
the passage from Ps. 106:30–31, where the deed of Phinehas is said to have
been imputed to him for righteousness, this can easily be explained. For in
Rom. 4 Paul establishes a twofold imputation. First,

when a reward is imputed to one who works. He states that by this kind of
imputation a person is not

justified before God to life eternal. For a person cannot be justified by some
one work, because whoever

does not continue in all of them is cursed, whoever transgresses in one,

although he has kept the others,

is guilty of all. But there is another imputation, by which a person is

justified, namely, when the righteousness is imputed gratis, by faith,
without works.

Therefore, Ps. 106:30–31 does not speak of the justification of the person.
But because the deed of

Phinehas could appear savage, God is said to have imputed it for

righteousness, that is, to have accepted

it as a just deed, and indeed to have imputed a reward which should also
pass to his descendants from

generation to generation: “For to him who works a reward is reckoned”

(Rom. 4:4). However, by that

imputation the person is not justified to life eternal. For blessedness belongs
to that man to whom God

imputes righteousness without works. Therefore it remains the gratuitous

imputation of the

righteousness of Christ, by which the believers are justified to life eternal.

23 The eighth argument. The Tridentine decree says that it is an apostolic

tradition, that when the catechumens seek the faith which offers eternal life,
this Word of Christ is placed before them: “If you

want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” But hear how Andrada
proves and establishes this:

“Whatever is delivered by Christ and written in the Gospel pertains to the

righteousness of faith. But ‘If you want to enter into life, keep the
commandments,’ likewise ‘This do and you will live,’ is a statement

of Christ and is written in the Gospel. Therefore, the doctrine of the Gospel
and the righteousness of faith is that men both should and can merit eternal
life for themselves by their own works.” I reply: This is a childish
hallucination, refuted by Augustine himself, to distinguish the doctrine of
the Law and of
the Gospel in the books of the Old and the New Testaments in such a way
as to hold that in the one nothing is contained but the Law and in the other
nothing but the Gospel, since it is perfectly clear that in the New Testament
Christ and the apostles often treat and explain the doctrine of the Law and
that, on

the other hand, in Moses and the prophets the very doctrine of the Gospel is
described in many passages. Thus the words are indeed Christ’s, and they
are found in the Gospels: “This do and you will

live,” “if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” But Christ
Himself expressly shows that

these statements belong to the doctrine of the Law, for He says: “What is
written in the Law? How do

you read?” Likewise: “You know the commandments.” It is therefore wrong

when the papalists assert

that this is the proper doctrine of the Gospel, or the righteousness of faith.
For Paul argues that these two are opposites: “The just shall live by faith”
and “He that will do these things will live by them.”

And, indeed, he proves from this that by the Law no one is justified before
God. (Gal. 3)

24 But you say: When the question was asked how a man could inherit
eternal life, Christ answers:

“If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments,” likewise: “This do
and you will live.”

I reply: They asked what they would have to do or with what works they
would have to earn eternal

life for themselves. There Christ replies: “If you want to merit eternal life
by your works, there is no
holier or more perfect rule for good works than the doctrine of the Law, to
which nothing can be added and from which nothing can be taken away,
which also has the promise of life if one fulfills it by a perfect obedience in
the manner which the Law prescribes.” But He does not say that the scribes
are able to do this, rather, He does this to convince them that they cannot
perfectly fulfill the Law, as the

context clearly shows, in order that they may understand that they need a
different righteousness than

that of their own works if they want to inherit eternal life. For on this
account the Law is first of all set forth with its promises, in order that,
because the human mind flatters itself exceedingly about its own

virtue, it may experience through the very attempt that it cannot fulfill the
Law with perfect obedience

and thus learn that another righteousness is necessary for it to eternal life.
For the teaching of the gratuitous righteousness of faith can have no place,
unless a man has previously been convinced that he

cannot by his own works of the Law obtain salvation to life eternal. Thus
the Law is a schoolmaster to

Christ, that He Himself may be our righteousness. The papalists, however,

wickedly turn this around.

For what Christ set before the Pharisees, who were inflated with the opinion
of their own righteousness,

in order that He might blunt their pride, this they set before the
catechumens, who are seeking what that

faith is by which they can obtain eternal life: “If you want to enter into life,
keep the commandments.”

And although Moses sends to Christ those who want to be justified by the
Law, the papalists direct from
Christ to the Law the catechumens, who are to be led to Christ through
Baptism, when they seek the faith which offers eternal life, that by doing
the things which are written in the Law they may be justified and live. And
they are not afraid to ascribe this to the tradition of the apostles, although
Paul expressly teaches the opposite. And in Acts 2:37–38, when the
catechumens ask: “Brethren, what shall

we do?” Peter does not say: “If you want to enter into life, keep the
commandments of the Law,” but:

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you … for the forgiveness of sins.”
In Acts 16:30 a catechumen

seeks the faith which offers eternal life, for he says: “What must I do to be
saved?” But what does Paul

reply? Does he say: “Do that which is written in the Law, and you will
live”? By no means! But he says:

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your
household.” And he was baptized at

once with all his family.

25 These are the true and reliable traditions of the apostles that tell us what
they replied to the catechumens who were seeking salvation and eternal life.
But the Tridentine fathers set against this the

unwritten tradition, which asserts what is clearly the opposite, namely, that
to the catechumens who seek

the faith which assures eternal life, this sentence, which Christ Himself
declares to be law, should be proposed: “If you want to enter into life, keep
the things which are written in the Law.” From this example also the reader
understands what the papalists seek under the name of unwritten tradition,
namely, that they may lead the church away from the things which are
written, so that something which
is not only different from what the Scripture teaches but even opposite to it
may be believed under the

pretext of unwritten traditions.

26 Lastly, I shall add also this, how Andrada attempts to reply to what I had
noted in the opinion of the Jesuits, that the mercy of God in Christ, which
the Gospel praises, in which stands the salvation and

life of all of us, is this, that God has set before us this conditional
proposition: “He who does those things which are written in the Law shall
live through them.” I said, and still say, that this statement of the Jesuits is
infamous, criminally perverting the sweetest consolations of the Gospel
about the mercy of

God in Christ Jesus, set before us for our salvation, although the Scripture
simply sets in opposition to

each other that mercy of God and our works: “Not because of our
righteousness but because of Thy great mercies”; “not because of deeds
done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of His own mercy He

saved us.” But Andrada objects that the kinds of God’s mercies are
innumerable and inexhaustible and

that it can therefore be correctly said that also this belongs to the mercy of
God, that He counts our works, though they be imperfect and unclean, as
worthy of rewards, both in this life and after this life. I do not deny this,
yes, I know that the mercy of God fills the whole earth. But the question is
what that

mercy of God is of which the Gospel teaches that it is set before us in Christ
that our life and salvation may depend upon it. This, I say, is defined
wickedly by the Jesuits as being that promise of the Law concerning our
works: “He that shall do these things shall live through them.”

79 The reference is to the military tactics of the Roman general Fabius

against the Carthaginians in the Second Punic War.
SECTION V

Concerning the Growth of Justification After It Has Been Received

Chapter X

Having therefore been thus justified and made friends of God and members
of His household, going

from virtue to virtue, they are renewed (as the apostle says) from day to day,
that is, through the mortification of the members of their flesh and by
exhibiting them as weapons of righteousness to sanctification through
observing the commandments of God and of the church. In that
righteousness, which they have received through the grace of Christ, while
faith cooperates with good works, they grow and are justified even more, as
it is written: “He that is just, let him be justified still.” And again:

“Do not be afraid to be justified even to death.” And again: “You see that a
man is justified by works,

and not by faith alone.” For this growth of righteousness the holy church
asks when she prays: “Lord,

give us increase of faith, hope, and love.”

CANON XXIV

If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and is also not
increased before God through

good works, but that the works are only the fruit and the signs of the
justification received, not also a

cause of its increase, let him be anathema.

Examination

1 The testimonies of Scripture are clear, that the renewal of the new man, as
also the mortification of the old, is not perfect and complete in this life but
that it grows and is increased day by day until it is perfected in the next life,
when this corruptible will have put on incorruption. Profitable also and
necessary in the church are exhortations that the regenerate should not
neglect, extinguish, or cast away

the gifts of the Spirit which they have received but that they stir them up
with true and earnest exercises, calling on the help of the Holy Spirit, that
He may give an increase of faith, hope, love, and of the other spiritual gifts;
for what the punishment of spiritual negligence is the parable of the talents
shows. There is also no doubt that faith is effectual through love, that it is
the mother of good works, and that good

works please God through faith for the sake of Christ. And in this sense the
statement in James 2:21–24

can be understood and accepted appropriately and rightly, that through the
numerous good works that

followed Abraham is declared to have been truly justified by faith, and it is

shown that faith is not empty and dead, but true and living.

It is clear that James is disputing about the demonstrations or manifestation

of faith against the idle

opinion of an empty faith and justification, for he says: “If a man says he
has faith, let him show his faith by his works.” And he takes the example of
Abraham, which the angel himself interprets of the proof or manifestation,
when he says: “Now I know that you fear the Lord.” James, therefore, is
speaking of this, that the obedience and good works of Abraham declared
and furnished proof that he

had truly been justified by faith. For to James “to be justified” means to be
declared righteous through

external testimonies.

2 If it were these chief points of the doctrine which are dealt with in this
chapter of the Tridentine decree, there would be no controversy, for the
matters are true. But let the reader again note the insidious cunning of the
synod. They take the teaching and the testimonies of Scripture on how the
renewal ought to grow from day to day, how the inherent gifts of the Spirit
must increase through prayerful exercises, but behind this facade they are
after something far different. For the title speaks of the growth of the
justification which has been received, and the chapter says that those who
have once

been freely justified are afterwards justified more through the keeping of
the commandments of God and of the church, so that afterward a man is
justified by works, and not by faith alone. Also, canon 24

says the following: “If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved
and is not also increased

before God through good works, but that the works are only the fruit and
the signs of the justification

received, not also a cause of its increase, let him be anathema.”

3 It can be understood more clearly from the explanations of Andrada and

from the opinion of the Jesuits what this chapter of the council concerning
the growth of the justification received really wants

to say, lest anyone should be disturbed by its ambiguities. For also the new
obedience of the regenerate

is honored in Scripture with the title “righteousness” (Rom. 6:13, 18; Eph.
4:24; 2 Cor. 9:9, 10; Heb. 11; 1 John 2:29). And there is no doubt that this
newness can and should grow and increase in this life.

But the Tridentine fathers do not really and chiefly desire this; they want to
confirm and obtrude on

the church the papalist distinction of a first and a second justification. For
they call that the first justification when an unregenerate man is first
permeated with the inherent righteousness, when the first
quality, or infused characteristic, of love has been received. And of this first
infusion of love they say that no works merit it as a deserved reward. But
they call that the second justification when the infused

love exercises its operations, bringing forth good works. And this second
justification, they say, can and should be obtained through good works. And
these works, they think, merit a greater righteousness than

the one which is infused freely, for Christ’s sake, in the first justification.
Yes, they add that those works in which their second justification consists
finally merit eternal life, which, they say, must be bestowed as a deserved
reward upon our works performed in love. So say the Jesuits.

Andrada contends in a similar manner that the arguments of Paul that we

are justified freely, for Christ’s sake, without works, are to be understood
only of the first justification, which is afterwards increased and amplified
by our works, so that we may be more righteous before God. And Andrada
adds: “The outstanding works of the righteous possess great power not only
toward the increase of righteousness by the benefit of Christ but also for
meriting and obtaining eternal salvation.” The debate

concerning good works will be treated under a special topic later.

4 I have written down these things already here in order that it may be
plainly and clearly understood what the chapter concerning the growth of
the accepted righteousness aims at. For although they attempt to confuse the
reader by the ambiguity of the word justification and justice, yet the
question how we are reconciled to God, how we may have Him placated
and propitious, how we are adopted as

sons and accepted to life eternal is always linked with justification. When
they therefore say that we become more fully justified through our works in
the second justification than in the first justification, which occurs gratis for
Christ’s sake without our works, they certainly mean that God afterwards is
more gracious to us and that He adopts and accepts us to life eternal more
firmly on account of our works than previously on account of the
redemption and merit of Christ.
Now I ask the reader to weigh this whole matter more diligently in his own
mind. Paul in the strongest manner contends that we are justified gratis, for
Christ’s sake, without any worthiness and merit of our own works, that is,
that we are reconciled to God and accepted to life eternal.

These statements they cannot altogether erase, therefore they restrict them
to the single moment when

a man is first made a righteous man out of an ungodly one, so that in one
moment only, and that in the

first moment of the beginning of conversion, we are justified freely for

Christ’s sake, without works; but afterwards, throughout our whole life, in
temptations, in the struggle of death, and finally to life eternal, we are
justified before God on account of our own works; and that indeed in such a
way that this other

justification which occurs through our works is greater, more abundant, and
worthier than the first, which occurs gratis, for Christ’s sake. Therefore they
bring back into the church that Scholastic figment

that Christ merited only the first grace for us, with the help of which, while
our own free will concurs,

we can afterwards merit with our own good works that we become more
pleasing to God, and are received to life eternal on account of our own good
works.

5 And, in short, the meritum condigni 80 is the Helen81 for which the
Tridentine chapter concerning the growth of justification contends. For they
imagine that the quality, or habit, of love is infused not that we may possess
salvation to life eternal through this first grace but that, assisted by that
grace, we may be able to merit eternal life for ourselves by our own good
works. For concerning the meritum condigni Gabriel speaks thus: “The soul
shaped by grace through an act performed simultaneously by the will and
through grace worthily ( de condigno) merits eternal life.”
6 These stupendous and enormous things are contained and concealed in
that chapter concerning the

growth of the received justification. One would not readily notice these
things unless he is acquainted

with Scholastic theology, if he were to consider only the statements of

Scripture which are quoted in that chapter. However, we have the
explanations of Andrada. When we consult these, we shall notice afterward
from the words of the chapter that this was plainly the thinking of the
Tridentine fathers.

7 It is not hard to see that this opinion conflicts diametrically with the
teaching of Scripture. For the

Scripture is not speaking only of the beginning of conversion when it says

that we are justified before

God to life eternal by grace, for Christ’s sake, without works, so that
justification occurs in a moment

but that afterwards, in order that we may obtain salvation, we are

throughout our whole life justified through and on account of our good
works. For in Rom. 4 Paul proves that Abraham was justified by

faith, freely, for Christ’s sake, without works not only in the beginning of
his conversion but that also

when, as a new man, he had obeyed God with good works through many
years, there was imputed to

him righteousness without works, not as to one who worked but as to one
who believed.

And when he asserts that David says that that man is blessed to whom
righteousness is imputed without works, this certainly cannot be understood
only of the beginning of conversion, for he says that

this is justification, that we finally obtain that same blessedness, namely,

that righteousness is imputed to us without works.

In Rom. 5 there is found a glorious division. The first is concerning the

beginning: “Through Christ

we have access by faith to this grace, that, being justified by faith, we may
have peace with God.” The

second is concerning the middle: “In that same grace we stand by faith.”
The third is concerning the end: “Through that same grace we glory by faith
in hope of the glory of God,” that is, as we by faith

have access to grace, so also we hope that we shall by the same faith and
grace arrive at glorification.

As, therefore, we have peace with God in the beginning of our justification
by faith, freely, for Christ’s sake, without works, so we have it also in the
middle and at the end.

In the very same way, through a distribution, Paul teaches the doctrine of
justification in Phil. 3, what

was his righteousness before God to eternal life, namely, at first, when he
was converted from Pharisaism, secondly, at the time when he wrote to the
Philippians, thirdly, when he will come for the

resurrection of the dead.

But does he say that his justification in the beginning of conversion was
different from his justification later, when he wrote from prison, or when he
will come for the resurrection of the dead?

This he certainly does not say, but describes one and the same righteousness
of faith, in the beginning,

the middle, and the end.

In Rom. 1:17 Habakkuk does not say only: “The just lives by faith,” but

, “shall live.” It is

therefore one and the same justication, the one in the beginning of
conversion and the one by which we

finally come to eternal life. For the righteousness of God is revealed in the
Gospel, not from faith to our works but from faith to faith.

In Acts 15 the question is treated whether the righteousness of faith without

works is to be proclaimed to the Gentiles. But lest this be restricted only to
the beginning of conversion, hear what proof Peter brings. He says that to
the Gentiles, whether already converted or still to be converted, the

doctrine of justification without the works of the Law must be preached in

the same way as we apostles

believe that we are saved by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. But the
apostles were certainly not in

the beginning of conversion when Peter pronounced this judgment, but at

least 18 years had passed since then. And yet he does not say, “as we
believed,” but, “as we believe that we are saved.” And Peter

applies the same thing to the already departed fathers, that they were saved
by that same grace, without

the yoke of the Law. Therefore Peter ascribes the same reason of
justification and salvation to the beginning, the middle, and the end.

Christ says: “He that believes in Me has eternal life.” But lest this be
understood only of the beginning of conversion, He connects these two
things in John 6:40: “He that believes in Him has eternal life, and I shall
raise him up on the last day.” He speaks thus in John 3:18 and 5:24: “He
that

believes in the Son shall not be judged, shall not come into judgment.”
Therefore justification to life eternal is one and the same, both in the
beginning and afterward, in the resurrection of the dead, lest we come into
judgment.

8 Therefore that dogma concerning a difference between the first and the
second justification is false

and contrary to the Scripture. Moreover, it is derogatory to the most holy

merit of Christ to assert that a second justification, which rests on our
works, is greater, more bountiful, and worthier before God than

the first, which rests on the merit of Christ alone, and that it is not the first
but the second justification which merits life eternal. However, that they
attribute the growth of justification simultaneously to the

observance of the commandments of God and of the church will be

examined under the topic

concerning good works.

80 Meritum condigni is distinguished from meritum congrui. According to

the teachings of many Scholastics, the good works of the unregenerate had
only meritum congrui, that is, such merit as is suitable to the condition of
these works. The good works of the regenerate were regarded as possessing

meritum condigni, that is, a merit worthy of being rewarded with eternal
life.

81 A literary allusion to Helen, the wife of Menelaus, over whom,

according to Greek saga, the Trojan War was fought.

Ninth Topic

CONCERNING FAITH

From the Decree of the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent

Chapter V
CONCERNING THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR
JUSTIFICATION IN ADULTS, AND WHENCE IT

PROCEEDS

The synod declares furthermore that the beginning of this justification in

adults is to be derived from

the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is, from His call, by
which they are called while

they have no merits of their own, that those who through their sins were
turned away from God may through His grace, which incites and assists
them, also by assenting freely to grace and by cooperating

with it, be disposed to convert themselves to their own justification, so that

when God touches the heart

of man through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, neither does man
himself do nothing whatever as he

receives that inspiration, since he obviously can reject it; nor could he on
the other hand without the grace of God move toward righteousness before
Him by his own free will. Therefore, when it is said in

the sacred writings: “Turn to Me, and I will turn to you,” we are reminded
of our liberty; when we reply: “Convert us, Lord, to Thee, and we shall be
converted,” we confess the prevenient grace of God.

Chapter VI

THE MANNER OF PREPARATION

Adults are, however, disposed to that righteousness when, incited and

assisted by divine grace and laying hold of faith through hearing, they are
freely moved toward God, believing those things to be true which have
been divinely revealed and promised, and this above all, that the ungodly
are justified
by God through His grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,
and nevertheless, knowing

themselves to be sinners, by turning from the fear of divine justice, by

which they are profitably shaken, to a consideration of the mercy of God,
they are raised to hope, trusting that God will be propitious to

them for Christ’s sake, and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all
righteousness. And therefore

they are moved against sin through a certain hatred and detestation, that is,
through that penitence which must be done before Baptism, and finally they
resolve to receive Baptism, to begin a new life, and to

keep the divine commandments. Concerning this disposition it is written:

“He who comes to God must

believe that He exists and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him”;
and: “Be of good confidence,

son, your sins are forgiven you”; and: “The fear of the Lord drives out sin”;
and: “Do penance and be

baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”; and: “Go
therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name

of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to
observe all things, whatsoever I

have commanded you”; and finally: “Prepare your hearts for the Lord.”

Chapter VII

WHAT THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE UNGODLY IS, AND WHAT

ARE ITS CAUSES

This disposition, or preparation, is followed by justification itself, which is

not only the remission of
sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inner man through
voluntary acceptance of grace and

of the gifts by which an unjust person becomes a just one, and an enemy
becomes a friend, that he may

be an heir according to the hope of eternal life. The causes of this

justification are these: the final cause is of course the glory of God in Christ
and eternal life; the efficient cause is the merciful God, who gratuitously
washes and sanctifies, sealing and anointing with the Holy Spirit of
promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; the meritorius cause,
however, is His beloved, only-begotten Son, our Lord

Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, because of the exceeding love
wherewith He loved us, through His most holy suffering on the tree of the
cross merited justification for us and made satisfaction to God the Father
for us; again, the instrumental cause is the Sacrament of Baptism, which

is the sacrament of faith, without which no one is ever justified; finally, the
sole formal cause is the righteousness of God, not that by which He is
Himself righteous but that by which He makes us righteous, or that by
which we, being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind
and are

not only reputed to be, but are truly, called and are righteous, receiving the
righteousness in us which

the Holy Spirit imparts to each one as He wills and according to each one’s
own disposition and cooperation. For although no one can be righteous
unless the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated
to him, yet this takes place in this justification of the ungodly when through

the merit of this most holy passion the love of God is poured out by the
Holy Spirit into the hearts of

those who are justified and inheres in them. Therefore in that justification
man receives, together with
the forgiveness of sins, all these things infused through Jesus Christ, in
whom he is implanted through

faith: hope and love. For faith, unless hope and love are added to it, neither
unites perfectly with Christ nor makes one a living member of His body.
For this reason it is most truly said that faith without works

is dead and useless and that “in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor
uncircumcision avails anything,

but faith which works by love.” This faith the catechumens seek from the
church before the Sacrament

of Baptism, in harmony with the apostolic tradition, when they seek the
faith which bestows eternal life,

which faith cannot bestow without hope and love. Therefore they also at
once hear the word of Christ:

“If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Therefore, when
they receive the true and Christian righteousness, they are at once
commanded as regenerate persons to preserve it white and spotless as the
first robe, given to them through Christ Jesus in place of that which Adam
by his disobedience lost for himself and for us, that they may bring it before
the tribunal of our Lord Jesus Christ and have eternal life.

Chapter VIII

HOW IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE UNGODLY IS

JUSTIFIED BY FAITH, AND GRATIS

When the apostle says that a man is justified by faith and gratis, these words
are to be understood in

that sense which the perpetual consensus of the Catholic Church has held
and expressed, namely, that

we are said to be justified by faith because faith is the beginning of human

salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is
impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of

His children. But we are said to be justified gratis because none of the
things which precede justification, whether it be faith or works, merit the
grace of justification. “For if it is by grace, then it is not of works, otherwise
[as the same apostle says] grace is not grace.”

Chapter IX

AGAINST THE VAIN CONFIDENCE OF THE HERETICS

Although it is necessary to believe that sins are not remitted nor have ever
been remitted except gratis, by divine mercy, for Christ’s sake, nevertheless,
it dare not be said that sins are forgiven or have been forgiven to anyone
who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins and
relies solely on this, since it can happen among heretics and schismatics,
yes, in our time it is happening that this one confidence, which is far
removed from piety, is preached with great contention against the

Catholic Church. But neither is it to be asserted that those who are truly
justified must without any doubt whatever settle in their own minds that
they are justified and that no one is absolved and justified from sins except
he who confidently believes that he is absolved and justified; and that
absolution and

justification is wrought through this faith alone, as if he who does not

believe this therefore doubted concerning the promises of God and
concerning the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ. For

as no pious person should doubt concerning the mercy of God, the merit of
Christ, and the power and

efficacy of the sacraments, so everyone, when he looks upon himself and

his own infirmity and indisposition, can be in fear and dread concerning his
own grace, since no one can know with a certainty of faith which cannot be
in error that he has obtained the grace of God.

Chapter XI
RASH PRESUMPTION IN THE MATTER OF PREDESTINATION
IS TO BE AVOIDED

Also, no one, so long as he is in this mortal life, should presume so far

concerning the hidden mystery

of divine predestination as to come to the conclusion with certainty that he

is surely in the number of the predestined; as if it were true that, after he has
been justified, he either can no longer sin, or, if he sins, that he should
promise himself certain repentance. For it cannot be known whom God has
chosen for

Himself except by special revelation.

Chapter XIII

CONCERNING THE GIFT OF PERSEVERANCE

So also it is with the gift of perseverance, of which it is written: “He that

shall persevere to the end

shall be saved.” Because this, indeed, cannot be obtained anywhere else

except from Him who is able to

establish him who stands, let no one promise to himself anything with
absolute certainty; nevertheless,

all should place and repose the firmest hope in the help of God. For unless
men are without His grace,

God, as He has begun a good work, so He will also finish it, working both
to will and to do. Yet, let those who think they stand take heed lest they fall,
and let them work out their salvation with fear and

trembling, in labors, in vigils, in giving of alms, in prayers, in offerings, in

fastings, in chastity. For they should fear, knowing that they have been born
again to the hope of glory but are not yet in glory; with
respect to the conflict which remains with the flesh, with the world, and
with the devil, in which they

cannot be conquerors except by the grace of God, they should follow the
apostle, who says, “We are debtors not to the flesh that we should live
according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die;
but if you will mortify the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit, you will live.”

CANON IV

If anyone says that the free will of man, when moved and incited by God,
by no means cooperates by

assenting to God, who is inciting and calling, and thereby disposes and
prepares itself for obtaining the

grace of justification, and that it cannot dissent, even if it should want to,
but like an inanimate thing does nothing at all and merely remains passive,
let him be anathema.

CANON VII

If anyone says that all works which are done before justification, for
whatever reason they may have

been done, are truly sins, or that they merit the hatred of God, or that the
more earnestly anyone strives to dispose himself for grace, the more
grievously he sins, let him be anathema.

CANON IX

If anyone says that the ungodly is justified by faith alone in such a way that
he understands that nothing else is required which cooperates toward
obtaining the grace of justification and that it is in no way necessary for him
to be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will, let him be
anathema.

CANON XII
If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy,
which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this trust alone by which we
are justified, let him be anathema.

CANON XIII

If anyone says that it is necessary for every man, in order to obtain

remission of sins, that he believe

certainly and without any doubt arising from his own infirmity and
indisposition that his sins are remitted to him, let him be anathema.

CANON XIV

If anyone says that a man is absolved from sins and justified because of this
that he confidently believes that he is absolved and justified, or that no one
is truly justified except he who believes that he is justified, and that through
this faith alone absolution and justification is effected, let him be anathema.

CANON XV

If anyone says that a regenerate and justified person is held by faith to

believe that he is certainly of

the number of the elect, let him be anathema.

CANON XVI

If anyone says that he will certainly have the great gift of perseverance to
the end with absolute and

infallible certainty, unless he has learned this by special revelation, let him
be anathema.

Examination
We shall not draw in everything here which belongs to a full treatment of
faith but shall note down

some things on those points only which the nature of our examination, as
we planned it, seems to demand.

In the Pauline epistles, especially those to the Romans and to the Galatians,
in almost every verse we

hear it said that a man is justified by faith, through faith, out of faith; faith is
said to be imputed for righteousness. It is called “the righteousness by faith”
in Rom. 4:11; “righteousness through faith” in Rom. 3:22; “righteousness
based on faith” in Rom. 10:6; “righteousness in faith,” or (what is more
significant)

(“that depends on faith”) in Phil. 3:9; “the righteousness through faith for
all

who believe” in Rom. 3:22; “We have believed in Christ Jesus in order to
be justified by faith in Christ

and not by works of the Law” in Gal. 2:16.

Because these things are most manifest, the papalists cannot deny them.
Therefore they seek various

sophistical arguments in order that, although they cannot deny the words
that teach justifying faith, they may nevertheless by weird explanations rob
the churches of their true and comforting meaning.

However, we shall not speak of the various sophistries of others now but
shall examine the trickery of

the Council of Trent. The issue of the dispute revolves around this chief
question, in what sense and for

what reason faith is said to justify.

There are chiefly three points which must be examined. The first deals with
the preparation for justification. For they want this to be the meaning when
Paul says that a man is justified by faith, that

faith is the foundation and root of justification, that is, that faith is only the
beginning of justification by way of preparation or disposition.

The second deals with the way the Scripture describes justifying faith and
with the sense in which it

explains it when it says that a man is justified through faith.

The third deals with the doubt which the papalists express against the
confidence and certainty of justifying faith concerning the forgiveness of
sins according to the promise of the Gospel.

SECTION I

Concerning Preparation for Justification

1 The reader has already observed from a number of examples that the
architects of the decrees of the Council of Trent used such cunning that,
before either an explanation or a refutation can be undertaken,

one must first inquire what it is that they wanted to say.

Since it was their purpose to establish the entire form of Scholastic doctrine
for their own churches

and to foist it on ours again, they had to think out such trickery, lest this
fraud should be noticed by everybody at first glance. For this reason they
studiously flee and avoid in most things the terms, or modes of speech,
which originated without Scripture in the philosophical workshops of the
Scholastic

writers, but the matters themselves, as they are taught by the masters of
sentences, they simply retain,
except that they add a smoke screen by means of certain terms borrowed
from Scripture in order that the

reader who is not versed in the useless disputations of the Scholastic writers
but only accustomed to the

language of the Holy Spirit may think at first glance that the council gave
serious thought to some degree of reformation of the Scholastic doctrine
according to the norm of Scripture when he hears that

here they do not so frequently use only the terminology of the Scholastics
but bring in also, in some places, the words and phrases of Scripture. But
later, as he progresses, he finds out, both from the matters and from the
words, something far different, yes, the very opposite. For though certain
words

are here and there borrowed from Scripture, yet they make a Babylonian
confusion of the language of

the Holy Spirit and of Scholastic terminology, according to the saying:

“Your wine is mixed with water”

(Is. 1:22). But the purity of the matters themselves as they are taught in
Scripture they adulterate utterly.

2 A clear example of this trickery is found in the chapters on the

preparation for justification. For the mode, or order, which God employs
when He wills to lead man to justification that he may receive
reconciliation, remission of sins, the adoption, etc., is altogether certain,
being specified and prescribed in the Word of God. And those who do not
want to accommodate themselves to the divinely prescribed

mode, or order, under the leading of the Spirit but neglect and tread it
underfoot, these do not come to

justification; for God wills that we should begin with the knowledge of and
assent to His Word. Also,
contrition must precede justification, that is, the earnest acknowledgment of
sins, the terrors of a conscience that recognizes the wrath of God against
our sins and that sorrows on account of sins. In this

contrition the purpose of persevering and continuing in vices is not retained

but is cast off. To these terrors faith must be added, which, through the
knowledge of and trust in the promised mercy of God

for the sake of His Son, the Mediator, must again lift up and console the
heart, lest, oppressed by despair, we plunge into eternal ruin. But let faith
approach God, seek, desire, ask, apprehend, and accept the remission of
sins. And Scripture itself teaches that the way for the Lord is prepared in
this manner,

or order, specified in the Word of God, that in Him, through and on account
of Him, we may by faith

obtain and receive justification. For the voice cries thus: “Prepare the way
for the Lord” (Is. 40:3; Matt.

3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4). And of the ministry of the Baptist, preaching the
Baptism of repentance, Gabriel says in Luke 1:17: “To make ready for the
Lord a people prepared.” Here we can also apply what Sirach says, Ecclus.
2:17–18: “Those who fear the Lord will prepare their hearts, and will
humble

their souls before Him. Let us fall into the Lord’s hands, and not into the
hands of men, for as His majesty is, so is His mercy also.”

3 Therefore, if this were the mind and intention of the synod, that they
wanted simply to show this

mode and order of which we have spoken, which God uses according to the
teaching of Scripture when He wills to lead men to justification; and if they
would attribute not to the powers of free will but to the grace of God and
the operation of the Holy Spirit what precedes according to the teaching of
the Scripture; and if they would not set up in those preparations merit or
worthiness on account of which we
might be justified, we could easily come to an agreement on the term
“preparation,” rightly understood

according to Scripture.

Also Luther did not shrink from this, for he says, on Gal. 3: “The Law in its
true office is a handmaid

and preparer for grace, because it serves to this end, that grace can have an
entrance to us.” Yes, he says that the Law in its office is of benefit to
justification, not because it justifies but because it drives man to the
promise of grace and makes it sweet and desirable, etc. Therefore it is
wrong what they attribute to

us in the ninth canon, as if we taught that absolutely no movement of the

will, divinely bestowed and

excited, precedes the acceptance of justification. For we certainly teach that

repentance, or contrition, precedes it, which cannot happen without great,
true, and earnest movements of the will. But we do not

say that repentance, or contrition, precedes as a merit, which by its worth

cooperates for obtaining justification, but as the feeling of sickness or the
pain of a wound is not a merit toward healing but urges and impels a person
to desire, seek, and obtain a physician. For those who are well have no need
for a

physician, as Christ says, but those who are sick.

4 But it is a far different thing for which the Tridentine fathers deceitfully
contend when they dispute concerning the preparation for justification. And
lest it be necessary to operate with conjectures, Osius

explains this expressly in his detailed confession, for he says that the
Scholastics built up the meritum congrui82 from this, that one reads
somewhere in some of the ancients that sinners through the good works
done before justification merit the remission of sins and justification itself.
However, because many things could be brought up against that meritum
congrui, both from Scripture and from the fathers, but especially from
Augustine, therefore Osius says that the Tridentine Synod preferred to use

the term “preparation,” or “disposition,” for grace, rather than meritum

congrui. And let the reader diligently note this, that the Council of Trent
understands the same thing by the term preparations, or dispositions, as the
Scholastics understood when they dispute about meritum congrui. For also
in the disputations of the Scholastics themselves concerning meritum
congrui the words “preparation” and

“disposition” are everywhere heard. Therefore, in order that it may be

possible to examine more correctly those things which the men of Trent
have decreed concerning the preparation for justification,

the things which the Scholastics dispute about preparations, or dispositions,

for grace, and about

“adequate merit” ( meritum congrui) must be briefly repeated.

5 The Pantheologia argues thus from a statement of Thomas: “A certain

preparation is necessary for the reception of the grace which makes
acceptable. And the reason is that no form is received by any

matter without its proper arrangement, as fire is not received in wood unless
it is dry and arid; nor is knowledge received in a man unless he is willing;
and as in the creation of the rational soul, which is

produced immediately from God, nature disposes the material to the

reception of the rational soul.

However, for this preparation,” he says, “no gift of the Holy Spirit which is
in the nature of a certain

quality is required but only divine assistance which moves and excites the
free will; when this is so moved, it is sufficient through man’s own natural
powers to elicit the act of conversion by doing what
he can, so that in this way he prepares himself through his own act and
disposes himself to have grace.”

However, the efficacy of this preparation for merit, they say, comes from
this, that the powers of the free will are moved and excited by grace freely
given. It is therefore one and the same movement, says Thomas, by which
free will is disposed and by which the grace of justification is poured in;
just as in

natural generation in the same moment the ultimate disposition in the

material ends the change, and the

essential form is brought into being, so together with the movement of the
will, which disposes to grace

by doing what it can, the grace of justification is at the same time poured in.

6 Gabriel, in the third of the Sentences, distinction 27, argues thus: “Into
everyone who does his best and through this is sufficiently disposed to the
reception of grace God infuses grace. But the most perfect way of doing
what is in one is to love God above all things, which,” he says, “the human
will is

able to do by its natural powers.” Therefore he says that this act is the
immediate and ultimate preparation for the infusion of grace and that, when
this disposition is there, in the same instant grace is infused, because when
in natural processes the subject is disposed with a final disposition toward
its form, the form is immediately poured in.

In the 4th sentence, distinction 14, question 1, he says: “The disposition to

grace is twofold, namely,

the prevenient one, which is not sufficient, as for instance the first acts in
which a man considers his sin and offense against God, which dispose him
to bring forth out of his natural powers the act, or movement, to love God
above all things.” He calls this the “accompanying disposition,” with which
there occurs at the same time the infusion of grace, or love. For when the
act of love to God above all
things is elicited from man’s natural powers, that is the immediate,
sufficient, and ultimate disposition

that makes him fit for the reception of grace, and where this exists, grace is
at once infused, and thus

this act is meritorious, as in natural processes the ultimate disposition

inevitably leads to the form.

In question 2 he says: “As the form is not induced in an indisposed subject,

and since it has the opposite of the form which is to be induced, therefore it
is necessary that the subject be prepared for the infusion of the grace, which
is our formal righteousness before God,” that is, as my friend Andrada
explains, “it is a quality of mind which has been formed by the divine law
to obey the divine law and

will and induces it to attend to all duties demanded by virtue.”

And Gabriel says that by this infused grace, that is, by this quality, a man is
rendered worthy of the

glory of eternal blessedness. Likewise, that through that grace, that is,
through that quality, a man is accepted to eternal life and through that
quality the bondage to eternal death is removed. Such is the preparation, or
disposition, of the Scholastics for justification; to such a disposition also
their justification corresponds.

Of the “adequate merit” ( meritum congrui) they speak thus in the

Compendium Theologiae, Bk. 5, ch.

11: “Merit in general is the power of a good work to obtain that which one
has not, or to have more rightly what one has. ‘Adequate merit’ is that by
which the subject is disposed so that he is able to receive grace according to
the manner of divine justice; for wrong would be done to divine justice if
grace were bestowed on those in whom there is a hindrance, that is, on the
wholly unworthy.”
Thomas says, “Meritum congrui is that which proceeds from the free will,
for it is adequate ( congruum) that, as long as a man rightly uses the
strength of his free will, God works according to the excellency of His
surpassing mercy. And by this meritum congrui one can merit the first
grace.” As a reason for this, Gabriel names the following: “Because God
accepts the act of him who does what is in

him for the infusion of grace, not as something justly owed but from his
liberality.” With the operation

of free will Thomas connects the general influence of God. The

Compendium Theologiae says that grace, freely given, is always ready to
excite and move free will, which, thus moved, when it uses its

own natural powers, does what it can, and that God infallibly infuses grace,
that is, the love by which

we are made acceptable to God, and that afterwards we, through its works,
merit eternal life ex condigno (“entirely deservedly”).

Let the reader hold these descriptions of the Scholastics about the
preparations, or dispositions, for grace and about meritum congrui beside
the degree of the Tridentine Synod concerning the preparation for
justification, and he will recognize what monstrosities that decree fosters.
And in order that there may be the less doubt, the interpreter of the council,
Andrada, explains at length that what is taught concerning the preparation
for justification is to be understood in this sense.

7 Now, therefore, the examination of chs. 6 and 5, concerning the

preparation for justification, will be easy and plain. And let the reader
observe the trickery, for the words which in any way mention divine

grace are placed in such a way that one might suspect that the Tridentine
fathers do not want to have anything in common with the opinion of the
Scholastics concerning the disposition for grace through the works of the
unregenerate, elicited from the natural powers of free will.
But do they reject and disapprove of those opinions? Far from it! For in
canon 7 they pronounce the

anathema on those who deny that unbelievers dispose themselves for grace
through their works. And they revile the statement of Luther that an
unbeliever, when he trusts that he is able to dispose himself

for grace through works performed outside of grace by the natural powers
of free will, sins doubly, first, because whatever is not of faith is sin,
second, because the sin is made more grievous when to those works there is
added the opinion of merit and the confidence that God will give grace on
their account.

We have also shown above that Andrada, writing at Trent, ascribes to the
works of unbelievers not

only meritum congrui but very much more than that. But you say: “The
Tridentine fathers certainly often make mention of divine grace in chs. 5
and 6.” I reply: This must be understood according to what

we have already quoted from the Scholastics, namely, that the freely given
grace excites and sets in motion the free will, which, when it is so moved,
can by its own natural power elicit motions and actions by which man is
disposed for grace. Therefore the reader knows what deceitful tricks the
architects of the decrees employed.

8 However, the explanations and refutations of that Scholastic opinion have

been given above in the topics of free will and of the works of unbelievers.
Let us therefore proceed to what follows, that faith
must be understood to justify by reason of its being a preparation. For in
canon 12 they condemn with

the anathema anyone who understands justifying faith as trust in divine

mercy, which seeks,

apprehends, and accepts the remission of sins for the sake of Christ the
Mediator, in the promise of the

Gospel, and that we are justified before God to life eternal solely through
this trust. In ch. 8 they explain their own opinion in this way, that we are
said to be justified by faith because faith is the beginning of human
salvation, the foundation and root of all justification. How they want to
have this understood they declare abundantly in ch. 6, concerning the
manner of preparation for justification. And that the matter may be still
plainer, Andrada adds his own interpretations. For he says that the power of
justification is ascribed to faith in the sacred writings because it prepares,
strengthens, and supports the soul to receive righteousness. And this he
soon explains more clearly with these words: “The ungodly is

said to be justified by faith because faith is the beginning and foundation of

justification for this reason, that it in a measure opens the doors to hope and
love, which are necessary works for preparing and obtaining
righteousness.”

Therefore faith, in the Council of Trent, is the beginning and preparation for
justification, not because

it lays hold of justification, that is, of the remission of sins, freely for
Christ’s sake, which is set forth in the promise of the Gospel, but because it
incites the free will to elicit such movements, or acts, which,

by reason of the meritum congrui, are necessary to obtain the righteousness

which they say is a new quality of our will.

9 The Scholastics, indeed, are not secretive about the pits from which they
have drawn this filthy opinion. For as in philosophy a good action proceeds
from the resolve but this resolve arises out of knowledge; in the same
manner, Thomas philosophizes, righteousness is a condition of the will.

However, the will does not allow itself to be carried into the unknown but is
moved by the power of understanding. Therefore he thinks that faith is
required for justification as something which directs the will, that it may
elicit the motions of hope and love, through which it is so prepared and
disposed that it adequately ( de congruo) merits the infusion of justification.
By faith, therefore, they simply understand only the historical knowledge
and the mere assent by which we, in general, recognize and establish that

those things are true which have been revealed concerning God and His
will, not only in Scripture but

also in those things which are set forth under the name of traditions. But
how the men of Trent in ch. 6

think that this historical knowledge and this bare assent incite the free will
to those works which they

say are necessary to obtain justification, I shall set forth from the statement
of Gabriel, which is found in Bk. 3, distinction 14, question 2. For so the
reader will better understand the chimera in ch. 6, concerning the mode of
preparation. He says: “The will in its acts looks back to earlier acts of the
intellect. Therefore: (1) The act of faith must come first, by which the
abomination of sin and sin’s reward is understood. (2) From this there
follows fear of the wrath of God and of the fire of hell. (3) As a result of
this, sins begin to displease, and man begins to detest them. And this is the
disposition de congruo, not complete, nor sufficient, but far from it. (4)
Faith turns to a consideration of the divine mercy, and decides that God is
ready to remit sins through the infusion of love in those who are sufficiently
prepared and disposed. (5) From this consideration there follows the act of
hope, by which

he begins to desire God as the highest good. (6) From this act of hope one
rises to loving God above all
things by natural powers. (7) Out of that love is elicited a different
displeasure with, and detestation of, sin, not on account of the fear of
damnation but because of God, who is now finally loved above all things.
(8) These acts are followed by the resolve to amend. And this, finally, is the
sufficient or undivided meritum congrui, the sufficient and ultimate
disposition for the infusion of grace.

These steps of preparation, or disposition, in plainly the same order, and

with the words not greatly

altered, the reader sees rehearsed in ch. 6, concerning the mode of

preparation.

10 But hear what is ascribed to those preparations. Thomas calls it a

disposition or preparation of necessity, when after the final preparation of
the matter there necessarily follows and is present the introduction of the
form. Thus Gabriel says: “When this sufficient and final disposition is
present, in which grace stirs up and incites the free will, which then by its
own power elicits and produces such preparatory acts, then finally the
infusion of grace must take place, because God has decreed that He will
without fail give grace to him who does the best he can.” Andrada explains
this in this way, that by

these imperfect movements of hope and love the heart is prepared in such a
way that it may not be altogether unworthy of righteousness. The Jesuits of
Cologne explain these preparations in this way, that

God considers such a faith, when found together with other works in man,
worthy that He should bestow justification on it. Therefore we finally have
what the council is seeking with these preparations, namely, that some merit
of our own and some worthiness of our own may be established which is
necessary for obtaining justification. For they say that our justification rests
on the mercy of God in such a way, that divine justice is nevertheless
preserved, that is, that it is not conferred without some merit and worthiness
on our part.

11 However, the Scripture teaches that whatever the divine justice requires
for justification, that is, for the reconciliation of the sinner, has been wholly
fulfilled for us by Christ, so that, so far as we are concerned, it is pure
mercy which justifies us freely, without our own works, except that we in
true repentance, acknowledging our misery, by faith freely accept that
gratuitous gift, not by way of merit or

worthiness.

12 Therefore let the reader consider attentively what those words which are
found in ch. 7 aim at:

“Man is implanted in Christ through faith, hope, and love. For faith, unless
hope and love are added to

it, neither unites a man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living
member of His body.” But this they

soon explain more clearly. For they say that to the catechumens seeking the
faith which gives eternal life, the reply is made: “If you want to enter into
life, keep the commandments.” They are certainly aiming in the direction of
the disputations about unformed faith and formed faith, although for
reasons

of their own they refrain from using these words! For they do not want to
have justifying faith understood as trust which lays hold of Christ the
Mediator with His entire merit in the promise of the

Gospel; when they speak of faith they understand it only as historical

knowledge and bare assent. And

because such faith, which is found at times in ungodly men, yes, even in the
devils (James 2:19), cannot

justify, therefore they think that something must be added to faith which is
of greater weight and merit,

namely, love, through the worthiness of which a man is accepted to life

eternal.
13 But that the manner of this examination may be more sure, I shall add
Andrada’s interpretation.

He says: “The works of hope and love are necessary to obtain

righteousness.” And he adds the reason:

“Because through those works we perfectly apprehend Christ.” He contends

also that it is necessary for

justification that Christ be apprehended. But he says that He is apprehended

not by faith only but by faith, hope, and love at the same time. This he
explains with these words: “The justification of most men the Epistle to the
Hebrews attributes to faith, not because Christ is apprehended through the
intellect alone, which is the seat of faith, but because faith incited those
illustrious men to outstanding works of hope and love. Thus Noah is said to
have been justified by faith because faith inflamed him

with the love of God.” But how Christ is apprehended by the works of hope
and love Andrada explains

thus: “Because by these works the heart is abundantly prepared for

righteousness, namely, that it may

not be entirely unworthy that Christ should communicate Himself and His
merits to it.” He says that the

strength of the merit is not to be placed in those works, but he understands

the merit as meritum condigni (“merit by desert”). However, the preparation
he clearly understands in the same sense as the Scholastics argue
concerning “dispositions” and about meritum congrui, as this has been
explained above.

Andrada himself, candid man that he is, explains himself without

dissimulation. For when he

discusses the question whether the first parts of this preparation should be
given to faith or to love or to the repentance which arises from faith, he
employs this syllogism: “Those things avail most to bring about a certain
thing which have the greater powers to increase it. Since, therefore, nothing
can increase righteousness more than the services rendered by love, one
must necessarily conclude that these hold the chief place in the soul in
preparing for righteousness.” The reader sees that in the conclusion he
should have said: “Therefore the deeds of love which precede justification
avail most for effecting it.”

Yet he calls this the preparation. From this it is clear what his understanding
is.

14 These things had to be examined somewhat more carefully and at length,

that it might be possible to understand clearly, from what fountains the
things which were decreed concerning justification at the

Council of Trent were drawn, what monstrous things they nourish, and
whither they lead. For they are

really nothing else than repetitions and confirmations of those opinions

which the Scholastic writers have carted into the church from philosophy
and theology, badly and unhappily diluted, except that now,

with the terminology of the Scholastics slightly changed, certain terms have
been sought from Scripture

which are twisted to fit the opinions previously taken from philosophy, in
order that the fraud may not

be at once apparent. For in the disputation concerning the preparation for

justification they ex professo, as we have shown, repeat and confirm the
opinions of the meritum congrui (“adequate merit”). In the chapter on
justification they establish the arguments of the Scholastics about the grace
which makes acceptable, that is, concerning the quality, or condition, of
love, by which they imagine that a man is made acceptable to God and
worthy of life eternal. Where, however, they speak of the growth of the
received justification, they do nothing else than that they restore the
meritum condigni (“merit of desert”), that is, that the regenerate by their
own works deservedly earn eternal life for themselves. And thus the whole
Lernian Hydra and filth of Scholastic theology, with only the words
changed, is again

thrust onto the church by the council.

15 It was necessary that we should show somewhat more fully with what
insidious cunning they hid

the meritum congrui under the disputation concerning the preparation for
justification. For it is true that one must begin with the knowledge of and
assent to the Word of God. It is true that a certain contrition

must go before. It is also true what Ambrose says, that no one can rightly
repent except he who hopes

for forgiveness. But of this also, that faith is not dead or idle but that it
works through love, there is no doubt. What defect then, you ask, is found
in that decree? I reply: (1) They want to have faith understood as historical
knowledge and bare assent, so that they deny that it is trust in the divine
mercy which forgives sins for Christ’s sake. (2) They imagine that divine
grace only moves and excites free

will, which thereafter is able, from its own natural powers, to begin and
render those preparations. (3) In those preparations they set up some merit
and some worthiness, in view of which we are justified. For

they say that faith should hold that when a man does what is in him, then
God must of necessity infuse

grace. (4) That which is the true function of faith, namely, to lay hold of
Christ for righteousness and

salvation, that they ascribe to our love. And they simply invert the order
shown in Scripture. For they

imagine that the love toward God in us must precede reconciliation with
God, although it is impossible
that true love toward God should be begun, unless there is previously heard
and apprehended by faith

the voice of the Gospel concerning the reconciliation through the mercy of
God for the sake of the Son

and Mediator. These things certainly do not agree with Augustine (to say
nothing of the Scripture), who

constantly inculcates this rule: “Good works do not precede him who is to
be justified, but follow him

who is justified.”

16 Let this be the simple examination of the Tridentine decree on the

preparation for justification and in what sense they want it understood when
Paul says that the ungodly is justified by faith. The refutation and the
explanation we shall treat in the next chapter. Some things also belong to
the topic of repentance.

82 See note 80.

SECTION II

What Truly and Properly Justifying Faith Is, and in What Sense
Scripture Wants to

Have It Understood When It Declares that the Ungodly Is Justified by

Faith

1 Most necessary is a true and genuine explanation of what justifying faith

is and in what sense it is to be understood when the Scripture says that a
man is justified by faith. For faith is the means, or

(“instrument”), through which we seek, apprehend, receive, and apply to

ourselves from the Word of the
Gospel the mercy of God, who remits sins and accepts us to life eternal for
the sake of His Son, the Mediator. And this is why the devil attacks the
doctrine of faith in such a hostile manner. For because he was not able to
hinder the decree of God concerning the redemption of the human race,
therefore he turns all his cunning to this, that he may either tear away, or
shake, or corrupt, the instrument by which it is applied. For he knows what
is written, Heb. 4:2: “The message which they heard did not benefit them,
because it did not meet with faith in the hearers,” for “he that does not
believe will be damned.”

2 But for the sake of brevity and order, I will divide the explanation into a
number of questions. The first question will be about the object with which
justifying faith is properly and principally concerned.

For faith has in Scripture, or in the Word of God, its own proper, specific,
and certain object, upon which and to which it looks that in it it may seek,
apprehend, accept, and apply to itself that in respect to which, by the merit
and worth of which, the believer is justified before God, that is, receives
forgiveness of sins, is reconciled to God, receives adoption, and is accepted
to life eternal. For as faith is the organ by which we lay hold of and accept
the free mercy of God, who remits sins, adopts us, and accepts us to

eternal life, so God has established a certain organ, or instrument, through

which He offers, distributes, communicates, and applies to believers the
reconciliation, remission of sins, and life eternal. And as the merit of Christ
cannot be laid hold of for righteousness and salvation except by the organ
of faith divinely ordained for this, so, if faith seeks justification elsewhere
than in its own proper and chief object, it neither finds nor receives it.
Therefore both must be surely established from firm and clear testimonies
of Scripture, for one cannot err without danger and damage to salvation and
righteousness

in either of these; and therefore the devil undermines these foundations

when he attempts to shake the

doctrine of justification and to overthrow it.

3 But lest this explanation be disturbed by sophistical confusions, those
things which are contrary to the nature of justifying faith must be separated
through a division.

There is a faith which works miracles (1 Cor. 12:10), but many who had it
will hear on that day: “I do

not know you: depart from Me.” There is a dead faith (James 2:17), a
hypocritical, or feigned, faith (1

Tim. 1:19-20). That a dead faith does not justify is not in controversy,
because it is only historical knowledge, only an outward profession of faith,
an Epicurean persuasion that crimes will not be punished, etc. These must
therefore be separated from justifying faith, which is true and living. For the

papalists, by confusing them, disturb, obscure, and corrupt the true

explanation.

4 There is, however, a certain general faith which embraces in general the
historical knowledge of the things which are set forth by God in the
Scripture, and a general assent by which we conclude that the

things which have been revealed to us in the Word of God are true, not
because of arguments from reason but because we are sure that they were
taught and set forth by God, who is truthful and almighty.

And this general faith, because it can also be in the ungodly, does not of
itself justify. Nevertheless,

justifying faith presupposes and includes this general faith. For when this
general foundation, which concludes that whatever is divinely revealed in
the Word of God is true and certain, is not present or wavers, trust in the
promise of divine mercy, which forgives sins for Christ’s sake, can neither
be conceived, nor retained in conflict.

Also the article of redemption, of justification, or reconciliation, cannot be

rightly understood unless
the knowledge of other parts of the Word of God precedes it. Therefore,
when we say that the proper

and chief object of justifying faith is the promise of the gratuitous mercy of
God for the sake of Christ

the Mediator, we do not take away faith from the other articles, or parts, of
the Word of God. But even

as the sum, purpose, and scope of the whole Scripture is Christ the Mediator
(Luke 24:45-47; John 5:39;

Rom. 10:11-17; Heb. 10:16-17); so faith, when it assents to the whole Word
of God, looks upon the scope and end of Scripture, namely, Christ in His
office as Mediator, even as Augustine distinguishes

the Christian faith from the faith of devils through the last articles: “I
believe in the remission of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life
everlasting.”

5 For this reason and with this understanding the men of our party add this
little word in the definition of justifying faith: “Faith means to give assent
to the whole Word of God that is set before us, and in it to the promise of
the gratuitous reconciliation bestowed for the sake of Christ the Mediator.”

For we do not approve the opinion of the Marcionite Apelles, who, in

Eusebius, argues that it does no

harm if someone either simply does not believe or corruptly believes the
other parts of the Word of God

which belong to the foundation, so long as he believes in Christ crucified.

6 In this way, therefore, justifying faith presupposes and includes general

faith. But the question is what is the proper and principal object to which
justifying faith looks in the whole Word of God, in such

a way that in it it seeks, lays hold of, and receives reconciliation with God,
forgiveness of sins, adoption and life eternal. From an enumeration of the
principal parts of the Word of God the explanation of this

question is not obscure.

First: In the story of the time of Methuselah, of the building of the Tower of
Babel, and similar stories, faith does not directly either seek or find
remission of sins: yes, not even the story of the six days of creation teaches
how we are delivered from sin, from the wrath of God, and from eternal
death.

And where these things are not taught or offered, there faith should not seek
them, nor will it be able to find them if it does seek them there.

Second: In that part of the Word of God which rebukes sins and threatens
temporal and eternal punishments, faith cannot seek and find reconciliation
and remission of sins. For faith should not seek

anything else, nor can it find and receive anything else, than what the Word
shows, teaches, and offers.

How, then, could it seek and find reconciliation and remission of sins where
the Word announces the wrath and curse of God?

Third: Because that part of the divine Word which commands obedience
and prescribes works has the

promise of righteousness, blessing, and life (Rom. 2:6-7; Deut. 30:16; Luke
10:25-28), it seems that faith should seek justification in that object, for it
sets before us the promises of life. But Paul specifically explains this
question. For he says that the Law promises life not to the believers but to
the doers (Rom. 4:4; 10:5; Gal. 3:12). Therefore the sinner, feeling his sin
and the wrath of God, cannot find remission of sins, reconciliation, and
eternal life in the promises of the Law through a humble and suppliant faith.
For those promises do not offer such things to the believer gratuitously, by
grace, or mercy, but they demand that we bring works that satisfy the Law:
“He that does these things shall live
through them” (Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12). Rom. 4:4: “To one who works, his
wages are not reckoned as a

gift but as his due.” Faith, however, seeks and receives the promise of the
inheritance by grace, without

works. Therefore Paul says in Gal. 3:12: “The Law does not rest on faith,
for ‘he who does them shall

live by them.’ “And because the condition of perfect fulfillment is added to

the promises of the Law, therefore faith neither can nor should conclude
that because of our works, which are imperfect on

account of the flesh, we can find righteousness, blessing, and life in the
promises of the Law, because he is cursed “who does not continue in all
things” and “he who offends in one point is guilty of all.”

Therefore, “the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the
Law … through faith in Jesus

Christ for all who believe,” Rom. 3:21-22. Likewise, “boasting is

excluded,” not by the law of works

but by the law of faith. And Rom. 4:14 states: “If it is the adherents of the
Law who are to be the heirs, faith is null, and the promise is void.”

We have shown above, under the topic Justification, that when Paul
disputes about the works of the

Law he speaks not only of the works of the free will but of the works of
Abraham and David, that is, of

the regenerate. Therefore the true and proper object of justifying faith, in
which reconciliation and remission of sins must be sought, is not the
doctrine of good works and of the remuneration of good works. For Paul
denies this with convincing arguments in the epistles to the Romans and to
the Galatians.
7 The testimonies of the Scripture are firm and clear, which teach and
affirm that the promise, which is characteristic of the Gospel, the promise
concerning the free mercy of God, who remits sins, adopts,

and receives believers to life eternal on account of the Son, the Mediator, is
the true, proper, and chief object of justifying faith, in which it seeks, lays
hold of, and receives justification, that is, reconciliation with God and
forgiveness of sins (Rom. 3:24-25): “They are justified by His grace as a
gift, through the

redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation

by His blood, to be received by faith.” Rom. 4:5 ff.: “To one who does not
work but trusts Him who justifies the ungodly,

his faith is reckoned as righteousness,” as also David says: “Blessed are

those whose iniquities are forgiven, etc.” Likewise: “Therefore it is not by
the Law but by faith and according to grace, that the

promise may be sure.” Likewise: “It was written for our sakes, to whom it
is imputed for righteousness,

who believe in Him who raised up Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead,
who was put to death for our

trespasses and was raised for our justification.” In Rom. 10:15, where he
expressly describes the righteousness of faith, he makes its object the death
and resurrection of Christ, which he calls “the Gospel which proclaims
peace.” Acts 10:43: To Christ who died and rose again, “all the prophets
bear

witness that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins

through His name.” John 3:16:

“God so loved the world that He gave His only Son.” Likewise: “So must
the Son of man be lifted up,

that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.”
8 However, it is not necessary to quote all passages. For those which I have
quoted show that all the following statements of Scripture belong to this
subject:

First, those which speak of the gratuitous mercy, love, grace, kindness,
goodness, etc., of God the Father, sending His Son, choosing, calling,
reconciling, adopting, receiving to life eternal those who believe, etc.

Second, all statements which speak of the office of the Mediator in His
incarnation, cross, passion,

resurrection, ascension, session at the right hand.

Third, that the Holy Spirit sets forth, offers, distributes, applies, seals these
benefits by faith through the Word of the Gospel and through the
sacraments instituted by the Son of God for this purpose.

Fourth, here belong also the very numerous statements of Scripture that, by
the mercy of God on account of Christ the Mediator, we by faith receive
and possess the gratuitous reconciliation, remission

of sins, imputation of righteousness, acceptance by God to life eternal, the

adoption, liberation from the law of sin and death, liberation from the curse
of the Law, the propitiation for sins, peace, joy, hope of the glory of God,
the inheritance of salvation and of life everlasting, etc.

These things, which deal with the true, proper, and chief object of justifying
faith, in which it must

seek justification and is able to receive it, have firm and clear testimonies in
the Scripture.

9 It is of very great importance for the preservation of the purity of the

doctrine of justification to hold this true and proper object of justifying
faith. But let the reader observe that when the Tridentine

fathers dispute about the instrumental cause through which God proposes,
offers, distributes, communicates, and applies the benefits of justification to
believers, they name only the Sacrament of Baptism, while no mention is
made of the Word or promise which is peculiar to the Gospel, although

the Scripture joins the Word and the sacrament in this office. For it declares
that the Gospel is “the dispensation of the Spirit and of life” (2 Cor. 3:7-8).
For “it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith” (Rom.
1:16); and in 2 Cor. 5: 18-19 Paul says that God who “reconciled the

world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them,” gave to the
apostles the ministry of reconciliation, likewise that He entrusted to them
the message of reconciliation. And the sacraments are

nothing else than “the visible Word,” as Augustine beautifully expressed it.
For Baptism is not some separate opus operatum,83 beside and outside of
the promise of the Gospel, but it is the seal of the righteousness of faith.
And in Eph. 5:26 Paul combines Baptism and the Word. For he says:
“Cleansing

the church by the washing of water with the Word.” For God does not only
once in this life, namely, when we are baptized, offer, communicate, and
apply the benefit of justification to us. Therefore the Romanists are not
devoid of trickery when they make the Sacrament of Baptism alone the
instrumental

cause of justification and make no mention of the Word and of the promise
of the Gospel. But perhaps

there will be occasion to say more about this in the section concerning the
sacraments.

In ch. 6 let the reader observe that the very power of the truth is pressing the
words from them when

they say: “Faith is to believe that those things are true which have been
divinely revealed and promised,

and this above all, that the ungodly is justified by God through His grace.”
But while these words are sounding, they, in the meantime, are clearly
corrupting the matter itself.

For they imagine that faith must state that when we have grace, that is, the
quality of love, we are on

account of it accepted by God and worthy of eternal life. And so they

indeed concede to justifying faith

in words its true and proper object, namely, that one must seek justification
in the free mercy of God,

who remits sins for Christ the Mediator’s sake, but in the matter itself they
steal and take away this object and transfer it to the worthiness of qualities
inherent in us.

10 Therefore it is manifest how useful and necessary it is to establish and

confirm, from solid and clear testimonies of Scripture, what is the true,
proper, and chief object of justifying faith. For by various sophistries traps
are laid for the truth in this disputation.

11 But the matter is plain from the testimonies of Scripture, as we have

shown, except that this objection could disturb someone who is not
forewarned, that throughout the whole chapter of Heb. 11

various objects of faith are described, as the article of creation, the flood,
the concealment of Moses, the passing through the Red Sea, and the fall of
the walls of Jericho, the misfortunes of the saints, the wars of the Judges
and of the Kings of Judah, etc. And in the Gospels, where faith is frequently
praised, very

often external objects are described.

The papalists use this objection in order that they may dispute with some
show against the clear testimonies of Scripture, that the promise of the free
mercy for the sake of Christ the Mediator is not the proper and chief object
of justifying faith. However, they argue this in order that they may prove
that
faith does not possess the strength and power of justifying from its object
which it apprehends, but that

it borrows it from love. For faith does not justify because it accepts the fall
of the walls of Jericho with the intellect; therefore they teach that another,
more outstanding virtue, namely love, must be joined to

faith, that faith may be formed by its worth and thus justify.

12 However, the explanation of this objection is simple and true. We do not

deny that there are various objects of faith, yes, that faith, in general, deals
with all the things which are divinely revealed in the Word of God. But the
question here is what that object is to which justifying faith properly and

chiefly looks when it wants to seek, find, lay hold of, and receive remission
of sins, reconciliation, adoption, etc. “By faith they passed through the Red
Sea” (Heb. 11:29); “nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased,”
1 Cor. 10:5. Thus in 10 lepers faith grasps the object of external healing:

but to one only Christ says: “Your faith has saved you.”

Therefore Scripture speaks differently of the object of faith in general than

it does when it states the

object to which faith must look and which it must lay hold of, that it may
justify before God to life eternal, as we have shown above.

Another question arises concerning the exercises of faith under the cross, in
obedience, in prayer, and

through waiting for temporal and spiritual things after a person has already
been reconciled through faith.
This question the Epistle to the Hebrews discusses, namely, how faith, after
it has received justification, exercises itself through patience, as the point of
the entire subsequent discussion is given at the end of ch. 10. And in these
exercises, when faith is concerned with other external objects, in order

that our waiting, patience, and obedience may be firm and steadfast, this
true and chief object ought to

be placed in the forefront like a foundation and should cast its light before,
namely, the gratuitous mercy of God, promised for the sake of Christ the
Mediator. For under the cross, and amid offenses, when patience,
obedience, and hope of divine help about other objects must be shown, the
conscience is concerned most of all about this question, whether God is
appeased, reconciled, and propitious to me.

And unless faith, which justifies because of its proper and chief object, has
first answered this question, there can be no true, firm, and steadfast
exercise of faith with respect to other objects. For all the promises of God
are Yes and Amen in Christ Jesus to the glory of God through us (2 Cor.
1:20), that is,

the promises concerning the other objects are then finally firm for us, so
that we can with sure trust await their fulfillment when we have been
reconciled to God by faith in Christ. And thus they are firm

for us, if their fulfillment redounds to the glory of God through us. For the
word “Yes” signifies the assertion of the certainty of the promises. “Amen”
pertains to hope arising from firm trust with respect

to the things which have been promised.

13 Therefore it is certain and sure that the proper and chief object of
justifying faith, with respect to which and by the apprehension of which it
justifies, is the gratuitous promise of the mercy of God, which remits sins
and adopts and accepts the believers to eternal life for the sake of Christ the
Mediator.

This is the first question concerning the object of justifying faith.

14 Another question is how and in what manner justifying faith deals with
its objects that it may justify, namely, not by cold thinking nor by a general
and superficial assent but in such a way that it acknowledges, looks to,
longs for, seeks, lays hold of, accepts, embraces, and applies to the
individual

believers, through the promise, Christ with all His merits, and in Christ the
mercy of God which remits

sins. For it is altogether necessary that those who want to be justified should
accept Christ and the promise of free mercy for Christ’s sake; for those who
do not accept it are not justified, according to the statement in John 1:11-12:
“His own people received Him not. But to all who received Him … He
gave

power to become children of God.”

He uses two words,

and

. And it is known that in the Greek vernacular the word

, as Demosthenes explains it, means to receive to one’s self what is offered

or transmitted

by another. However, this specific function and office, namely, to lay hold
of and accept Christ in the

promise of the Gospel, and in Christ the mercy of God for righteousness
and salvation, the Scripture gives not to works, not to charity, not to other
virtues, but solely to faith.

In John 1:12, when he has said: “But to all who received Him … He gave
power to become children

of God,” he at once adds the explanation who those are who receive Christ
and how He is received, namely, “who believed in His name.” And soon he
adds: “From His fullness have we all received grace
upon grace.” John 17:8 reads: “I have given them the words which Thou
gavest Me, and they have received them and know … and have believed.”

Rom. 9:30-32: “The Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have
attained it, that is, righteousness

through faith; but Israel who pursued the righteousness which is based on
law did not succeed in

fulfilling that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as
if it were based on works.”

He expressly says both: Not by works but by faith the righteousness of the
Gospel is laid hold of in Christ. And what he means by the word “faith”
soon follows: “Everyone who believes in Him [who is

laid in Zion as the Cornerstone] will not be put to shame.”

Rom. 5:11 explains the proposition “since we are justified by faith, we have
peace with God” thus:

“We have received reconciliation.” Again (v. 17): “Those who receive the
abundance of grace and of the

free gift of righteousness will reign in life through Christ.”

Gal. 3:14, 22: “That in Christ the blessing of Abraham might come upon the
Gentiles, that we might

receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” Again: “But the Scripture
consigned all things to sin,

that what was promised to faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who
believe.”

Col. 2:6-7: “You received Christ Jesus the Lord … rooted and built up in
Him and established in the
faith.” Also in the Gospel story it is shown by many examples that it is the
peculiar office of faith to be the organ which receives the benefits of Christ.
Thus in Matt. 9:27 ff. Jesus says to the blind, who were

shouting, “Have mercy on us, Son of David”: “Do you believe that I am
able to do this?” And when they replied, “Yes, Lord,” then He touched their
eyes, saying: “According to your faith be it done to you.” So in Matt. 13:58
and Mark 6:5, He could do no mighty work in His hometown of Nazareth
on

account of their unbelief. And in Mark 9:20 ff., when the father of the
afflicted boy cried, “If you can do anything, have pity on us and help us,”
Christ replies: “If you can! All things are possible to him who

believes.”

Thus John 6:53 reads: “If you will not believe, you will not have life in
you.” John 3:14-15: “The Son

of man must be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish
but have eternal life.” Peter

says, Acts 10:43: “To Him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who
believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name.”

Paul says, Rom. 3:22, 30: “The righteousness of God through faith in Jesus
Christ is for all who believe.” Likewise: “God is one; and He will justify the
circumcised on the ground of their faith and the

uncircumcised because of their faith.” Rom. 10:4: “Christ is the end of the
Law, that everyone who has

faith may be justified.” But it is not necessary to heap up more testimonies,

for the nature of the gratuitous promise of the Gospel requires that it be
accepted by faith, as also Gropper is compelled to

confess in the Institutio Coloniense. Therefore I wanted to note here

especially those testimonies which expressly attribute this to faith, that it
accepts Christ, grace, righteousness, reconciliation, remission of sins, etc.

15 The third question is how and in what manner faith in the promise
accepts Christ, the mercy of God, reconciliation, remission of sins, etc. My
friend Andrada, when explaining the opinion of the council, says that this
occurs in this way, that faith incites and kindles the soul to actions of love,
by which the soul is so prepared and disposed that it is not unworthy that
Christ with His merits, the mercy

of God, reconciliation, adoption, and life eternal should be given to it.

Therefore he argues that Christ is perfectly apprehended not by faith alone
but at the same time also by the works or actions of hope and

love. They add hope, because they want it to rest partly on our own merits,
partly on the mercy of God.

However, these things have been explained more fully above, in the section
concerning the preparation

for justification. I repeat them now, in order that we may consider how
necessary correct explanations

are.

16 Scripture indeed teaches that faith brings forth good works; however,
when it speaks of receiving justification, that is, reconciliation, it not only
names faith but adds by way of contrast: “not by works, nor according to
works.” Rom. 9:31-32 says that Israel, though it followed after the law of
righteousness, did not attain to the true righteousness before God for this
very reason, that they sought it not by faith but, as it were, by works. And
Rom. 4:5, speaking of Abraham, when he was already adorned with many
virtues by the Holy Spirit, says: “To one who does not work but trusts Him
who

justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” Abraham

certainly at that time both believed and at the same time worked, yet faith
was reckoned as righteousness not as to one who worked but as to one who
believed. Scripture also proves the same thing by the testimony of David,
that

to the regenerate, who have good works, nevertheless righteousness is

imputed to faith without works

(Rom. 4). When, therefore, the faith also of the regenerate acts before God
concerning reconciliation, adoption, and acceptance to eternal life, it does
not bring and set before God works, worthiness, and merits, that on their
account a person may be judged worthy, and be adopted and accepted to
eternal life.

For Paul says, 1 Cor. 4:4: “I am not aware of anything against myself, but I
am not thereby acquitted.”

David prays: “Enter not into judgment with Thy servant; for no man living
is righteous before Thee.”

And Daniel says: “We do not present our supplications before Thee on the
ground of our

righteousness.” It is therefore wrong to say that the organ by which the

merit of Christ is accepted for

righteousness is both faith and works at the same time, so that faith first
works deeds, then brings these our good works to God and sets them before
Him, that because of them we may be reconciled, adopted,

and accepted to life eternal.

17 Also the regenerate recognize that in this flesh nothing good dwells, but
sin; that because of the adhering flesh their works are so weak, imperfect,
and unclean that they are not such that by means of

them they could stand before God’s judgment in such a way that on account
of them they could be justified, that is, be reconciled to God, be adopted,
and be accepted to life eternal. Therefore faith looks about and tries to lay
hold of, obtain, and present to God a different, more perfect, and more
excellent

righteousness, by which it can stand before the judgment of God for

salvation and life eternal. This righteousness is Christ the Mediator,
apprehended by faith; for “Christ is the end of the Law, that everyone who
has faith may be justified.” (Rom. 10:4)

Indeed, in temptation and in trials, when the mind is overwhelmed with fear
and dread of the wrath of

God, then certainly, in that consternation, faith does not conclude: I have
charity, virtues, and merits, and on account of this worthiness God will
receive me. But faith points to and looks to the Son of God,

who was made a sacrifice for us, now sitting at the right hand of the Father
and making intercession for

us. To Him it flees, Him it seeks, in Him it believes, and it concludes that
on account of this High Priest we are forgiven and are granted
reconciliation, not because of our virtues and our worthiness. And so

faith sets against our sin and our damnation not our works and our own
worthiness but the merit of Christ. Therefore faith has the power and
strength to justify, not from this or for this reason, either that it brings forth
good works or that it is such an excellent virtue in us, such a glorious work,
or so worthy an action of ours, but the proposition is understood in relation
to another, for Christ in His office of Mediator is our righteousness (Jer.
23:6; Rom. 5:18-21; 10:3-4; 1 Cor. 1:30, etc.), and for His sake the

mercy of God receives us, remits our sins, adopts and accepts us to life
eternal.

But it is necessary that Christ, His merit, the mercy of God, reconciliation,
etc., be apprehended by

faith. And because faith makes us partakers of these blessings of God, and
is as it were our hand with
which we apply and appropriate to ourselves, embrace and possess the
things which are offered in the

free promise of the Gospel; it is on account of this office of applying that

the things which belong to the merit of Christ and to divine mercy are
bestowed on faith. For those who do not have faith are not partakers of the
benefits of Christ. Therefore the Pauline antithesis between faith and works
shows that

faith does not justify in this manner or for this reason, that it makes the man
to whom the benefits of

Christ are given worthy through works. But a humble man knows and
confesses that his nature is unclean and that he is not worthy of these great
blessings. Therefore faith seeks and obtains them by the

free mercy of God, for the sake of Christ the Mediator.

18 Moreover, because in the promise, through the Word and the sacraments,
the Holy Spirit through

the ministry shows, sets forth, offers, dispenses, communicates, and gives
these merits and blessings of

Christ, therefore faith does not doubt that by laying hold of the promise it
truly receives and possesses

these things. However, with what motions faith lays hold of and accepts the
promise of the Gospel is understood in the true exercises of justifying faith.
For there such motions and steps are noticed as are

described in Scripture.

First: The knowledge, or understanding, thinking, and meditation on the

promise of God concerning

the blessings of Christ the Mediator concerning the mercy of God,

concerning free reconciliation, etc.
(Luke 1:77; Is. 53:11; Col. 2:2; etc.)

Secondly: To this knowledge there must be joined assent, not only a general
assent but one by which

every believer concludes with firm persuasion that the universal promise
applies also to himself, that he

also is included and comprehended in that universal promise, Rom. 4: 23-

24: “The words were written

not for Abraham’s sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us
who believe.”

Thirdly: From that knowledge and assent the heart, or will, through the
operation of the Holy Spirit,

conceives the desire that, because it deeply feels that it is burdened with sin
and with the wrath of God, it desires, wants, seeks, entreats that there be
given and communicated to it the blessing of justification, which is set forth
in the promise of the Gospel, and this it lays hold of by faith to make it its
own.

Fourthly: When in this way faith flees from the sentence of damnation,
which is pronounced on us

through the Law on account of our sins, to the throne of grace and to the
mercy seat, which the heavenly

Father has set forth in the blood of Christ, confidence is added, Eph. 3:12,
which tells us on the basis of the promise that God then gives,
communicates, and applies to you the benefits of the promise and that

in this manner you truly receive those things which the free promise of the
Gospel offers for righteousness, salvation, and life eternal. From this
confidence there follows that boldness which has access to God (Eph. 3:12),
peace of conscience (Rom. 5:1), joy in the Spirit (Rom. 14:17), so that the
heart reposes in the promise of mercy even under the cross, in temptation,
and finally even in death, holding fast the hope of the glory of God (Rom.
4:20). These things are abundantly described in many

testimonies and examples of Scripture, which our desire for brevity forbids
us to describe one by one.

However, I did want to outline by a somewhat crude analysis, simple yet

also true, the steps of justifying faith, for in this way the doctrine of
justifying faith can be understood most correctly in serious exercises and
afflictions.

19 Let us not allow this useful simplicity to be disturbed by the

philosophical quibbling of Pighius, who vociferously proclaims that faith is
a chimera if it is simultaneously placed both in the heart and in the will.
For, says he, the things which differ in the subjects, differ also in essence.

However, we reply: First, that Scripture does not superstitiously observe

these philosophical

distinctions but simply attributes to the heart knowledge, trust, and

affections, even as it also often attributes to the mind the things that belong
to the will. Secondly, no matter how things stand with respect to the
subjects, this much is certain, that the movements of the mind and of the
will correspond;

therefore, such as the knowledge and assent in the mind is, such generally
are also the motions in the

will which follow and respond. Thirdly, this question was explained long
ago by the Scholastics. For Bonaventura asks how it agrees, that hope is a
sure expectation, when certainty belongs to the mind, and

expectation to the will. He takes his answer from the active intellect and
adds that it is not unfitting to place one and the same quality both in the
reason and in the will.
20 This reminder must, however, be added, that in these individual steps the
power of God is made

perfect in weakness. For faith is neither always nor in all a burning light but
frequently only a smoking

flax. For there is a great faith, as in the centurion and the Canaanite woman.
There is a moderate faith,

Matt. 14; a weak faith, Rom. 14:1. And the weakness of faith is either in the
knowledge (Rom. 14:1, 2,

14) or in the trust (Matt. 9:18). However, faith justifies not because it is so
strong and perfect a virtue but because of its object, namely, because it lays
hold of Christ the Mediator. Therefore, when faith does not err with respect
to its object, but apprehends this amid trepidations with ever so weak a
confidence,

or tries and seeks to apprehend it, even if it is only a moderate and weak
faith, nevertheless it is true

faith. And Paul sets forth the sweetest comforts in such an infirmity of faith.
Phil. 3:12: “I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made
me His own.” Gal. 4:9: “You have come to know God,

or rather, to be known by God.” Only let us pray, Mark 9:24: “Lord, I

believe; help my unbelief.”

Also from the feeling of comfort and of spiritual joy one cannot and should
not always judge whether

faith is genuine. For this feeling does not precede but follows faith, and it is
frequently lost sight of and overwhelmed by cross and temptations.
Therefore we must judge concerning faith from the Word.

21 This is a brief, simple and true explanation of what justifying faith is and
in what sense the Scripture wants it to be understood when it teaches that
the ungodly is justified by faith. And the antithesis itself is a clear refutation
of the fabrications of the Council of Trent.

22 Finally, some few things must be said about the argument which is the
chief one in the decrees of the council, namely, that the blessings of Christ
hang together in such a way that when a person is reconciled through the
remission of sins, there is begun at the same time also sanctification and
renewal

through the Holy Spirit. From this they want to draw the conclusion that
justifying faith in Christ apprehends not only the reconciliation but at the
same time also the renewal. And they keep vociferating

that we who place justification solely in the free imputation of the

righteousness of Christ take away and deny the other blessing of Christ,
namely, sanctification and the renewal. Likewise, according to ch. 7,

man receives with the remission of sins at the same time also hope and love.
Therefore, not faith alone

but faith, hope, and love together justify. And hope they add for this reason
in the application of justification, because they say that to hope without our
merits is not hope but presumption. And in canon 11 they say that by the
sola fide we exclude love, which inheres in the regenerate.

23 This is the one chief argument of the Council of Trent against this, that
faith alone justifies, solely through the imputation of the righteousness of
Christ. But the answer is plain. They do us a glaring injustice, as though we
took away and denied sanctification or renewal in those who are justified.
For

the men of our party plainly and clearly teach that renewal follows
reconciliation, so that with the remission of sins there is connected the gift
of the Spirit, who begins the renewal. Therefore in those who are reconciled
by faith on account of Christ the Mediator, the Holy Spirit begins
sanctification, or
renewal. However, we affirm with the Scripture that the renewal which is
begun is not that on account

of which we receive remission of sins and are adopted and received to life
eternal.

So also we by no means teach that justifying faith is alone, that is, that it is
such a persuasion which is without repentance, and that it does not bring
forth any good works at all. But we say that a faith which

is without works, idle, and dead is not that true and living faith which works
through love (Gal. 5:6).

But let the reader consider what the consequence of the argument of the
men of Trent is. Living faith is

not alone, without love, therefore it does not justify alone, but together with
love. Do therefore the things which are present at the same time, which
hang together and are connected, have one office, and

one and the same function? In that case we shall hear with our ears and with
our feet and see with our

eyes and with our hands. There will, therefore, be no distinction either of
the senses or of the powers of the soul, because a man receives and
possesses them at one and the same time. As therefore these and

many similar things, even when they are present at the same time, are
rightly and necessarily distinguished, so we do not tear apart reconciliation
and renewal, faith and love, in such a manner that

we remove and deny one of them, but we give to each its place, its function,
and its peculiar nature, with the Scripture, which teaches that this is the
peculiar function of faith alone that it apprehends and accepts Christ in the
promise of the Gospel for righteousness before God to life eternal. Faith
does not
divide this righteousness between Christ and our newness, or love, but it
ascribes it entirely to the merit of Christ.

24 Therefore true faith lays hold of Christ, but true faith is also not without
works (James 2:14-18) but works by love (Gal. 5:6). However, that faith
justifies and saves, that strength and power it does not borrow, take, and
have from this, that it works by love and brings forth good works, but from
the fact

that it apprehends Christ, who is the end of the Law for righteousness to
everyone who believes (Rom.

10:4). And there is no salvation in any other. (Acts 4:12)

But it is a different question, by what mark and testimony it may be known

and understood whether it

is true and living faith, lest we deceive ourselves by the false and dead
opinion of a feigned faith. On

this question we say with Scripture: That faith is sound which works by
love (Gal. 5:6), and “faith without works is dead.” (James 2:17)

In this sense the Apology of the Augsburg Confession says that faith which
is without good works does not justify. Likewise: “If anyone has cast away
love, even if he had great faith, yet he does not retain it. For those who walk
according to the flesh retain neither faith nor righteousness.”

25 These things, which I had said in this sense in the booklet against the
Jesuits, Andrada corrupts in such a way, as if I meant that good works are
necessary for justification and salvation; and he adds, “If

we begin to think and speak thus, there will be reason to hope that we will
soon return to the Roman

Church and think and speak the same as the papalists.” Here let the reader
diligently observe what hope
and how much stress the papalists place on the proposition concerning the
necessity of works for justification and salvation. But so far as I am
concerned, I reply: “This is a venomous and dastardly misrepresentation on
the part of Andrada. Never have I meant, never have I said, this, but I
profess and

protest that I earnestly disapprove of those propositions which have indeed

been spread by certain persons in our churches but which have, by the vote
of all, been rejected and refuted, namely, that good

works are so necessary for justification and salvation that it is impossible

that anyone should be saved

without good works. For this glory belongs only and alone to Christ, who is
apprehended and accepted

by faith, so that blessedness belongs to that man to whom God imputes

righteousness without works (Rom. 4:6). Yet we do not ascribe justification
to an idle or a dead faith, but we say that faith, if it is true and living, is not
idle but works by love. However, the life which faith brings to the believers
it does not borrow or receive from love but from Christ, whom it embraces,
who is our life and salvation.

26 Against the misrepresentations of the papalists, therefore, and against

Epicurean opinions, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession sets forth
from Scripture this mark of true faith, that it exists in

true repentance, and that it works by love. However, on the question how
faith justifies we say that faith lays hold of the only Mediator, Christ, for
righteousness and salvation, without our works.

In this question Paul sets forth the doctrine of justification quite simply but
adds many and varied exclusive particles, lest something be patched on it
by any show of right whatsoever, but that the cause

of our justification may be claimed solely for the free mercy of God, who
remits sins; the merit for the
obedience of Christ, the only Mediator; the application for faith alone.

27 Now these are commonly the exclusive particles with Paul:

1. The word “grace” with its equivalents. Eph. 2:8: “By grace you have
been saved through faith; and

this is not your own doing.” Rom. 11:6: “If it is by grace, it is no longer on
the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.” Titus 3:5:
“He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in

righteousness but in virtue of His own mercy.” 2 Tim. 1:9: “Not in virtue of
our works but in virtue of

His own purpose and the grace which He gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago.”
Ps. 71:16: “I will praise Thy righteousness, Thine alone,” where for the
sake of greater emphasis the affixed phrase is doubled,

“Thy righteousness, Thine alone.”

2. The little word “gratis” with its synonyms. Rom. 3:24: “They are
justified by His grace as a gift.”

Rom. 6:22: “The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal
life.” Eph. 2:8: “This is not

your own doing, it is the gift of God.” Gal. 3:18: “If the inheritance is by
the Law, it is no longer by

promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.”

3. The stress on the word “one.” Rom. 5:15, 17, 18: “The grace of that one
Man Jesus Christ abounded for many.” “They will reign in life through the
one Man Jesus Christ.” Through one Man’s

righteousness for all. “One man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and
life for all men.” Heb.
10:14: “By a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are
sanctified.”

4. Rom. 3:21: “Apart from law.” Gal. 2:16: “Not by works of the Law.” Gal.
3:11: “Not by the Law.”

5. Works. Rom. 4:6: “Apart from works.” Titus 3:5: “Not because of
deeds.” 2 Tim. 1:9: “Not in virtue of our works.” Eph. 2:8: “Not your own
doing.” Phil. 3:9: “Not having a righteousness of my own.” Rom. 10:3:
“Seeking to establish their own righteousness.”

6. The word “imputation.” Rom. 4:5: “To one who does not work but trusts,
… his faith is reckoned

as righteousness.” Righteousness is imputed without works; it is imputed

according to grace, not according to debt.

7. The remission of sins. Rom. 4:6: “David pronounces a blessing upon the
man to whom God
reckons righteousness without works: ‘Blessed are those whose iniquities
are forgiven.’” 2 Cor. 5:19:

“Reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against

them.”

8. The word “faith.” Rom. 3:28: “By faith apart from works.” Eph. 2:8-9:
“Through faith; and this is

not your own doing … not because of works.” Rom. 3:27: “Boasting is
excluded, … not on the principle of works but on the principle of faith.”
Acts 13:39: “Everyone who believes is freed from everything from which
you could not be freed by the Law.” In Gal. 2:16, there is found the special
exclusive “who knows that a man is not justified by works of the Law but (

) through faith.” For

many examples in Scripture show that the particles

and

exclude the preceding members of

the sentence. In Rev. 9:4 the locusts “were told not to harm the grass … or
any green growth or any tree

but only (

) those of mankind who have not the seal of God on their foreheads.” Rev.
21:27:

“Nothing unclean shall enter it … but only (

) those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”

Mark 13:32: “Of that day … no one knows, not even the angels … nor the
Son, but only (

) the
Father.” John 15:4: “The branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless (

) it abides in the vine.” In 1

Kings 22:3184 the Greek translators rendered the adversative particle

with

, which elsewhere

they often render with

. And in the same way they use the particle

in Ex. 4:1. Therefore,

the meaning of Paul in Gal. 2:16, is this: “Man is not justified by works of
the Law but through faith in

Christ.” And presently he explains the exclusive particle, saying: “We have
believed in Christ Jesus in

order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the Law.”

28 These are the exclusive particles commonly employed by Paul. We

cannot express these more briefly and fittingly in our languages than
through the little word sola (“only,” “alone”). For this particle in a most
meaningful way gathers in one embrace, as it were, all the exclusive
particles of Paul and sets

them before the hearers. And because this particle has at all times always
been employed in the church

in the article of justification, as can be shown by testimonies from the

writings of almost all the fathers, it has become custom in our churches
when we want to embrace briefly all the exclusives of Paul, that

we say: We are justified solely by the grace of God, solely by faith, solely
by the imputation of the righteousness of the only Mediator Christ.
We understand this exclusive particle thus: (1) that the condition of our
merit or worthiness is excluded; (2) that the cause of reconciliation is taken
away from our works or virtues and transferred to

the grace of God alone, on account of the merit of Christ the Mediator; (3)
that the medium, or organ, of

application is shown. For not by works but by faith alone is the free promise
of reconciliation on account of Christ the Mediator apprehended, received,
and applied. However, we condemn, as do also

Chrysostom and Augustine, those also in our own midst who understand the
exclusive particles as if those who persist and continue in gross sins without
repentance were justified by a dead faith, that is, by an Epicurean
persuasion that they will not be punished. Also we do not understand the
“faith only” as

only a knowledge or external profession of the dogmas of the church, such

as can be present in many

hypocrites and ungodly people.

These things which have been explained at length by our men I quote
briefly that it may become clear

how the particle sola is attacked and corrupted by dastardly

misrepresentations in the Council of Trent

and that the reader may understand that, when the particle sola, in the sense
in which we have explained it, is condemned, all the exclusives of Paul are
at the same time condemned. And this the papalists seek,

that they may with the particle sola silence all the exclusives of Paul.
Furthermore, because Andrada vociferously declares that Luther, by the
particle sola, understood a faith that is alone and dead, I shall here quote a
passage from his commentary on the 15th chapter of

Genesis, where he most clearly explains the sense of this exclusive. These
are his words: “I know that

the other virtues are excellent gifts of God; I know that faith does not exist
without these gifts.

However, the question is what belongs to what. You hold in the hand
various seeds. I do not, however,

ask which are related to which but what is the peculiar virtue of each. Here
say openly what faith alone

does, not with what virtues it is connected. Faith alone apprehends the
promise; this is the peculiar work of faith alone. The remaining virtues have
other things with which they deal.” Likewise: “We know that

faith is never alone but brings with it love and other manifold gifts; it is
never alone, but things must not for this reason be confused, and what
belongs solely to faith must not be attributed to the other virtues.”

So says Luther.85

83 Opus operatum: The Lutherans understood their Roman Catholic

counterparts to teach that the sacraments bestow grace ex opere operato, i.
e., from the mere fact that the sacrament was received, even if this was done
without faith. “They pretend that the sacraments grant grace ex opere
operato, without a right attitude in the recipient, …” Apology of the
Augsburg Confession, art. XII, par. 12.

84 This passage presents difficulties. The citation “4. Reg. 22” would
normally translate to our “2

Kings 22,” but that chapter contains neither the Hebrew nor the Greek
words mentioned. An
emendation to “3. Reg. 22” would be suitable in part. This would translate
to our 1 Kings 22, where, in

v. 31, we find the terms discussed, but the Greek term used is not the one
we expect to find. We should

expect Chemnitz to have written: “In 1 Kings 22:31 the Greek translators
rendered the adversative particle

with

, which elsewhere they often render with

.” But all the versions of the

Examen consulted have the Greek words in the order given in our text. The
problem remains the same if we emend our citation to “2 Kings 23:23.”

85 For the complete passage see Luther’s Works, Vol. 3 (St. Louis:
Concordia, 1961), pp. 24-25.

SECTION III

Whether the True Justifying Faith Is Confidence or Uncertainty with

Respect to the

Remission of Sins

1 Luther says in his comments on the 41st chapter of Genesis: “Even

though nothing else had been sinful in the papalist doctrine except that they
taught that we must wander about and be cast to and fro,

uncertain and doubtful about the remission of sins, about grace, and about
our salvation, we would still

have just reasons why we should separate ourselves from the unfaithful
church.” And Gropper also not
only acknowledged but publicly condemned the disgrace of this papalist
teaching concerning the uncertainty of justifying faith. There are also found
two books from the enemy camp by Ambrosius Catharinus and Dominic a
Soto about this question, which show that those who were gathered at Trent

were not agreed on this infamous doctrine that faith should be uncertainty.
And they say that for this reason they do not state the title of ch. IX simply,
but that they worded it thus: “Against the Vain Confidence of the Heretics.”

2 This observation, if rightly considered, will show with what cunning that
decree was composed. Its intention, aim, and sum was, nevertheless, as
Andrada, writing in the Council of Trent, asserts, that the

doctrine of the monks concerning uncertainty might somehow be retained,

confirmed, and strengthened.

And it is certainly not without cause that the papalists contend so sharply
for the retention of uncertainty. For they understand that the whole business
of papalist indulgence sales rests on this foundation. For when the
conscience seeks some sure and firm comfort and then hears that faith itself,

even when it apprehends Christ the Mediator in the promise, must be

uncertain concerning the remission of sins, it thinks that it wants to heap up
so many and such varied works that, according to the poet, if they do not
profit singly, the multitude of them may help. Hence over and above the
works commanded by God, self-chosen acts of worship without end and
measure have been thought out. From

this come the vows, pilgrimages invocation of the saints, fraternities, works
that are not owed, works of

supererogation, the trafficking in Masses, the selling of indulgences, and, in

short, the whole morass of

papalist superstitions. And because the embattled conscience did not find a
sure and firm consolation in
all these things, purgatory finally was thought out, and the purchase of
favorable decisions after death

was set forth. The papalist tax collectors fear for these revenues of their
kingdom. For they see that these will be diminished and lost if men are
taught from the Word of God that faith is confidence which

in the promise of the Gospel finds, receives, and possesses a sure and firm
comfort concerning reconciliation with God. Hence their tears; hence their
attempts to establish doubt.

3 But let us hear what kind of faith in the remission of sins the Tridentine
fathers set before the church. First, they admit that it is necessary to believe
that sins are not remitted in any other way except freely, by divine grace, for
Christ’s sake. For we know that this must be believed, because the doctrine

of the Gospel sets forth this promise for faith.

Second, however, they immediately add: Nevertheless, it must not be said

that sins are forgiven to one who reposes solely in the confidence and
certainty of the remission of his sins. Therefore in the Council of Trent,
faith believes the promise of the Gospel concerning the gratuitous remission
of sins on

account of Christ in such a way that it nevertheless does not dare to rest on
it with sure confidence; yes, they are not afraid to say that sins are remitted
to no one who, according to the promise of the Gospel,

relies on the confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins.

Third, they adduce the reason that there can be also among the heretics a
vain confidence, far removed from all piety.

Fourth, they add that not even those who are truly justified, should conclude
without any doubt in themselves that they are justified.

Fifth, they say it must not be asserted that no one is absolved from sins and
justified except he who
believes with assurance that he is absolved and justified. Therefore they
think that men are absolved from sins even though they do not firmly
believe that they are absolved; that is, they teach forgiveness

without faith.

Sixth, they make this declaration, that the pious should not, indeed, in
general doubt concerning the

promises of God, concerning the efficacy of the death of Christ, concerning

the merit of Christ, and concerning the power of the sacraments; but that, so
far as their application to individuals is concerned, when someone looks
upon his own unfitness, he can doubt and fear concerning his own grace.
For no

one can know with an assurance of faith which could not be in error that he
has obtained the grace of

God.

Seventh, they condemn with the anathema anyone who says that it is
necessary for every person, in

order to obtain the remission of sins, that he believe certainly and without
any doubt on account of his

own infirmity and indisposition that his sins are remitted.

4 These are the chief things which were decreed at Trent concerning
uncertainty against confidence.

But Andrada, after his fashion, as the interpreter of the council, adds the
explanation of what it is that they call “indisposition” and that they
condemn so often, if anyone relies alone on faith in the remission of sins.
For he says: “The Gospel teaches that those who seek God with sincere
faith and with ardent

love obtain justification, but whether I myself have all these things which
are necessary to obtain righteousness the Gospel by no means tells me.”
Again: “My faith must indeed chiefly seek through Christ that I be saved;
but whether I have employed that diligence which is necessary for the
attaining

of righteousness, that we have not learned by faith. For it holds that

justification is given by God to those only who prepare themselves to
receive it by acts of penitence and love. However, it is not certain

by a testimony of faith whether a person has done all those things which are
necessary to obtain righteousness.” He says: “I in no way doubt that the
way of righteousness is open to me if I come to the

throne of divine grace with sincere faith and true penitence. But whether I
have ever performed this truly and fully I can never rightly say.” He adds
this reason: “There are many sins which are so hidden

also from the sinners themselves that they can in no way discern them.
Since, therefore, no one can know whether he is implicated in some crime
of which he may in no way be conscious, how can he believe for certain
that he is justified?” That this persuasion, to flatter oneself that one has
obtained justification, is by no means Christian, he proves with the
statement of Cyprian: “Let no one so flatter

himself about his pure and clean heart that, trusting in his innocence, he
does not think that it is necessary to apply medicine to his wounds, since it
is written: ‘Who will boast that he is clean from sin?’” As for what the
Jesuits had written, “A faithful man indeed firmly hopes for eternal life, and
what is more, he trusts also; yet he does not believe with certainty, but
doubts, for hope can deceive,” in reply to this, Andrada says that hope has a
certain doubt connected with it and embraced in it. For since hope,

by which we promise ourselves eternal life, trusts both in our works and
most of all in divine mercy and

omnipotence, seeing it proceeds from merit and from grace; so, indeed, it
comes about that hope is certain in this way, that it is always connected and
coupled with fear and doubt.
5 Let the reader compare this interpretation of Andrada with the chapters of
the Tridentine decree concerning doubt, and he will see from what stagnant
pools, after the living fountain had been forsaken,

that hopeless opinion concerning doubt was derived. For as justification is

in the papal church, so also is faith. For first they attribute reconciliation
and remission of sins by word to divine mercy for Christ’s

sake, but they add that it is communicated, conferred, or applied to no one

except to him who has by

works of penitence and love so disposed himself that he is not altogether

unworthy that God should bestow the benefit of justification on him.
However, because the conscience is always uncertain whether

it has enough of such works, whether their presentation is worthy enough,

whether the preparation is sufficient, and whether all those works of
penitence and love which they think are required for a worthy

and sufficient preparation have been truly and perfectly performed, it

happens of necessity that through

this teaching anxious minds can never, when they call upon God, in
temptation, in wrestling with the wrath of God on account of sin, finally in
the very struggle of death, find a sure and firm comfort by

which they can sustain and support themselves, lest, oppressed by despair,
they rush into the eternal perdition; for the harder they try to dispose and
prepare themselves in this manner, the deeper they are

plunged into doubt. For in the very attempt they learn and experience more
and more the insufficiency

and unworthiness of their preparations. But if they bank on the sufficiency

and worthiness of their preparation, they fall under the judgment of the
Pharisee, Luke 18:9-14, that Israel in pursuing the righteousness which is
based on law did not succeed in fulfilling that law, because they did not
pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works, so that the way to
justification is both cut off and blocked through the papalist preparations.
And now the reader understands from Andrada’s

interpretation what was sought by means of those Tridentine preparations

for justification, namely, that

the entire faith in the remission of sins should be rendered doubtful and
uncertain, that is, that it should be destroyed. For Paul says, Rom. 4:14: “If
it is the adherents of the Law who are to be the heirs, faith is null, and the
promise is void.”

Secondly, the Tridentine decree says that even if someone had truly been
justified, nevertheless, no

one should conclude in himself without any doubt whatever that he has
been justified. Therefore the papalist teaching contains nothing but pure
doubts, whether it deals with the preparations or with the principal cause of
justification. But let the reader note what reason Andrada gives, why one
must doubt

also if he is truly justified. He says: “Because some sins are so hidden that
they cannot easily be known

and because the recesses of the human heart are unsearchable. Since
therefore no one can know whether

he is perhaps entangled in some guilt of which he is in no way conscious, it

always remains uncertain

whether we have been justified. For Cyprian says: ‘Let no one so flatter
himself about his pure and clean heart that, trusting in his innocence, he
does not think that medicine needs to be applied to his wounds, since it is
written: Who will boast that he is clean from sin?’ And Jerome says: ‘What
to us appears to be clean at times is perceived to be filthy by the eyes of
God.’” Thus, because they place the

formal cause of their justification before God for life eternal in the qualities
of inherent righteousness; and, indeed, because of the law of sin at war in
our members, no one can conclude with certainty that

these his inherent qualities are such that they are able to make a poor sinner
pleasing and acceptable, and that they are worthy of eternal life; therefore
those who want to be justified in this manner deserve

to be always in doubt concerning their salvation. And this is what I said

before: the papalists teach a kind of faith which fits precisely to their
understanding of justification. But, good God, what kind of doctrine is that
whose effect, sum, and end is this, that troubled consciences that seek
comfort are cast

into perpetual uncertainty and doubt concerning their reconciliation with

God, the remission of their sins, and salvation and eternal life? Certainly,
such doubts philosophy and every heathen religion can teach.

6 However, the papalists act uprightly and correctly when they themselves
inscribe this trademark on their theology, that it is a doctrine of doubt,
namely, one which cannot show and give to consciences a

true, certain, and firm consolation by which they can support and sustain
themselves under the stress of

temptations, but one which leaves consciences in the saddest doubts, into
which it plunges them ever more deeply. And, indeed, if they were to
proclaim otherwise about their doctrine, both the matter itself

and experience would convict them of lying. Nor, perhaps, would we be

readily believed if we should

say that the entire papal church is nothing but a workshop or source of
doubt. Therefore we accept this

their own testimony concerning the papalist doctrine and approve it with
our vote, that the doctrine of the Council of Trent concerning justification
cannot provide the conscience of true believers with sure
and firm comfort on which they can rely with sure confidence against
temptations but that it casts them

into perpetual doubt and holds and leaves them there. For error could, as
they say, hide under faith, and

it is a characteristic of hope, as the Jesuits say, that it can deceive. We do

not begrudge the papalist doctrine this saying; rather, we add with Paul that
those who want to be prepared in this manner by their

works and to be justified by their qualities, are still doing less than is right,
since they only doubt about their reconciliation, adoption, and acceptance to
eternal life. For Paul does not declare hesitatingly, but categorically, that he
is not justified merely because he is not aware of anything against himself.
(1 Cor.

4:4)

Likewise, “All who rely on works of the Law are under a curse,” because
he who does not abide by

all things will be cursed (Gal. 3:10). Those who seek justification not by
faith but as it were through works do not attain to it (Rom. 9:31-32). “You
are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by

the Law; you have fallen away from grace” (Gal. 5:4). Therefore let him
who is pleased with the kind of

consolation which brings doubt and despair take his delight in it; he will not
be able to pretend that he

was deceived, for the papalists preach that their doctrine does not afford
such a peace to consciences on

which they can securely and safely rely. Therefore let him who wants to be
in doubt about his salvation

embrace the papalist doctrine, for this is what they promise concerning the
end and aim of their doctrine.
7 However, the Tridentine fathers do not stop here but proceed further and
decree that no one, even though he believes with true faith that his sins are
forgiven gratis by divine mercy on account of Christ, should say with
certainty that he is absolved from sins. Yes, they add: “Whoever believes
that sins are

not remitted except freely by divine grace, for Christ’s sake, if he rests in
this confidence, then and for this reason his sins are not forgiven.” This
blasphemy must be opposed for the sake of the glory of Christ and for the
comfort of consciences. It is an extraordinary affront, to defame the
heavenly doctrine with this title, that it is a doctrine and source of doubt in
the article of the remission of sins. For the heavenly doctrine was revealed
to the human race for this reason, and for this reason it is set forth in the
church, that true believers may have a sure and firm comfort on which they
can safely rely against all

temptations in the promise of the Gospel concerning their reconciliation

with God, concerning their adoption and acceptance to eternal life. As we
therefore gladly grant and freely confess that the doctrine of the papalists
concerning justification is the hotbed of doubt and despair, so it is very
necessary that we fight in the church for trust in the gratuitous
reconciliation with God, for the sake of Christ the Mediator, for this is the
doctrine of the Gospel, the proper doctrine for the church.

8 However, we shall not follow up the explanation of this debate with a

lengthy discourse but shall only note down the basic things as briefly as this
can be done. But in order that this may be done the

more readily, we shall first remove in a few words those things which the
papalists first mingle together

and then try adroitly and deceitfully to shift the point of the controversy
before the inexperienced.

Now this debate is not about the faith of the heretics, who embrace and
preserve false and blasphemous opinions which attack the foundation; nor
is the question about the Epicurean persuasion
which promises itself immunity while persevering in crimes; for them we
proclaim not uncertainty but

the certain assertion of divine wrath, unless they are converted: “Those who
do such things will have no

part in the kingdom of God and Christ.”

We confess also that the true faith is not perfect in this infirmity of the flesh
but is often tempted with many and various doubts, so that in temptations,
in the midst of alarms, this confidence is often very weak. However, we
teach that we ought not to yield to doubt but that we should continually
contend against it, and pray: “I believe, Lord; help my unbelief.” Likewise:
“Lord, increase our faith.” Those who have been justified are also reminded
that they are not to abuse the confidence in the grace of God

by nourishing and confirming the security and wilfulness of the flesh, for
this must always be coerced and repressed with the curb of the fear of the
Lord. And, certainly, we cannot, when we look at our infirmity, at our new
qualities, or virtues, from there obtain confidence that we are certainly
accepted by God to eternal life, for we confess expressly with Paul: “I am
not thereby acquitted.”

9 I separate these questions from this debate because I see that the papalists
confuse this doctrine by mixing them in. Now the true issue in this
controversy between us and the papalists is this, that they teach that when
the sinner in earnest repentance, in true faith conceived from the Word of
God through

the Holy Spirit, apprehends the promise of free grace and in it at the same
time apprehends the Mediator, the Son of God, who is our righteousness, he
neither can nor should conclude with sure confidence that his sins are
remitted to him; that he can, indeed, have good hope and promise himself
all

good things from the mercy of God; but that these things must nevertheless
be left hanging in the midst
of wavering doubt, without sure confidence, because faith could err and
hope could deceive.

Such doubting they do not reckon among the infirmities and blemishes of
the flesh but among the virtues of faith, so that, unless doubt is present and
adorns and commends faith, it is the vain confidence of heretics, not
justifying faith. But because they see that these two, to believe and to doubt,
manifestly conflict with each other, they imagine that faith in general does
indeed conclude that the divine promises concerning the grace of God,
concerning the merit of Christ, and concerning the power of the

sacraments are true and sure; but that, when it comes to their application to
the believers, faith must perpetually remain suspended in doubt whether my
faith, which relies on the promise of God, should conclude with certainty
according to the statements of the Gospel: “Take heart, my son; your sins
are

forgiven.” Likewise: “Your faith has saved you.”

According to the papalists, therefore, faith will float about in midair,

suspended by a general persuasion among general things, either real or
nominal, among Platonic ideas; but concerning the application to the
believing person it either does not worry or is not certain.

10 But because this teaching, which is characteristic of the Gospel, is useful

and necessary, how consciences which are troubled by fear of the wrath of
God on account of sin can have sure and firm

comfort on which they can rely with sure confidence in remission of their
sins, we shall not indeed orate

at length but shall only note down the most important foundations of that
doctrine.

11 First, a firm and clear foundation is taken from the nature and peculiarity
of the gratuitous promise. For confidence in our salvation does not rest on
this, as if the discernment of our own native
ability, through its acuteness, could penetrate the very heavens and search
out what has been decreed concerning me in the secret council of the
Trinity; but it rests on this foundation, that God, coming forth out of His
secret light, revealed His will to us in His Word, as Paul in 1 Cor, 2:16 does
not hesitate to

assert that we have the mind of Christ. And in the Law the will of God is,
indeed, revealed in this way:

“Whoever will do these things, will live in them.” But if eternal life could
be apprehended through doubt, there would be no more suitable promise
than that of the Law, for on account of the added condition of perfect
fulfillment it leaves consciences in perpetual uncertainty (Rom. 4:13-16).
But because not doubt but faith justifies, and not he who doubts but he who
believes has eternal life, therefore God has set forth the gratuitous promise
of the Gospel, which rests not upon our works but on

the mercy of God on account of the obedience of His Son, the Mediator.

Why this promise was set forth Paul shows in Rom. 4:16: “That is why it
depends on faith, in order

that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed, etc.” But is the
intention that the promise should

be firm only in general and per se? Rather, says Paul, “that it may be
guaranteed to all his descendants.”

But how? “It was written,” he says, “for our sake also. It will be reckoned
to us who believe.” For in

general and in itself also the promise of the Law is sure. That it may,
however, be sure also for us, therefore it is according to grace and by faith.
Thus in Heb. 6:17-18 we have the most beautiful statement that God gave
an oath with respect to the free promise “in order that through two
unchangeable things, in which it is impossible that God should prove false,
we who have fled for refuge

might have strong encouragement to seize the hope set before us.” You hear
that the promise is sure not

in general only nor only in itself but that we who have fled for refuge might
have strong encouragement

to lay hold of the hope set before us. From this basis John takes the
argument, 1 John 5:10: “He who

does not believe God has made Him a liar.” John is not here speaking of a
general assent, for he adds: “I

write this to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may
know that you have eternal

life.” For if I believe in the Son of God and nevertheless doubt whether I
have eternal life, I do not believe this promise: “He who believes in the Son
has eternal life.” According to John, therefore, I have

made Him a liar.

12 Second, (a firm and clear foundation is taken) from the peculiar nature
of justifying faith. For to faith are given the names

(“full assurance”),

(“firm reliance”),

(“persuasion”),

(“boldness”),

(“confidence”); which certainly do not signify doubt

but sure and firm confidence, as I could prove by examples if I were not
afraid of prolixity. John, with a special purpose, speaks thus of faith in 1
John 3:14: “We know that we have passed out of death into

life,” in 5:13: “That you may know that you have eternal life, you who
believe in the name of the Son of

God.” 1 Peter 1:13: “Set your hope fully on the grace that is coming to
you.” Heb. 3:6: “If we hold fast

our confidence and pride in our hope.” Heb. 10:22, 23: “Let us draw near
with a true heart in full assurance of faith, holding fast the confession of our
hope without wavering.” In Heb. 6:19 we have the

very comforting figure of the anchor. For when an anchor falls into
quicksand, 86 it cannot hold the ship firmly; but when it is cast onto a firm
and retentive bottom, it holds the ship firmly against all waves.

Thus, he says, the anchor of our hope has been cast into heaven itself, and
indeed at the place where Christ is High Priest for us, who grasps, fastens,
and holds this anchor, as He says, John 10:28: “No one

shall snatch them out of My hand,” and as Paul says, Phil. 3:12: “To make it
my own, because Christ
Jesus has made me His own.” Thus Rom. 5:1-2: “Since we are justified by
faith, we have peace with

God.” Likewise: “We stand in the grace of God, and rejoice in our hope of
sharing the glory of God.”

Rom. 4:16: “That is why it depends on faith … that the promise may … be
guaranteed.”

These sweet consolations the papalist academicians try to corrupt and take
from us in a criminal manner by their uncertainty. But if doubting were a
virtue, it would be wrong to teach that we must contend against doubt; nor
should we be commanded to pray: “Increase our faith,” “help our unbelief.”

This also is a very strong argument against papalist uncertainty, that Paul
says, 2 Cor. 13:5: “Examine

yourselves, to see whether you are holding to your faith. Test yourselves.
Do you not realize that Jesus

Christ is in you? — unless indeed you fail to meet the test!” You hear that
everyone ought to test himself whether he is in the faith and that those who
do not know that Christ is in them fail to meet the

test. These things could be explained in a long discourse, but we are now
showing only the basic points.

I will add only this, that the papalists endeavor to frustrate the passage,
Rom. 8:31-39, through various

devices. Pighius quotes from Thomas that Paul is there speaking only of the
certainty of his own salvation, which he had by special revelation, but that
he does not say that every believer in Christ possesses the same kind of
certainty. But this is clearly false. For in that whole statement Paul speaks in
the plural and lays down the foundation of this assurance: “Christ died, yes,
He sits at the right hand of the Father, interceding for us.”
Therefore Andrada, seeing that these attempts to thwart the passage cannot
stand says that the word

(“I am sure, or persuaded”) does not mean a sure confidence but a probable
opinion, or

persuasion, which can nevertheless deceive, because it is thus employed in

certain texts of Scripture.

Yet it is used also for a sure, firm, and undoubted persuasion in 2 Tim. 1:12:
“I am sure (

) that

He is able to guard … what has been entrusted to me.” From this root word

(“trust,”

“confidence”) is derived.

The question now is: Which meaning fits the passage Rom. 8:38? But does
not the entire context

proclaim this? “If God is for us, who is against us? Will He not also with
His Son give us all things?

Who will accuse? Who will condemn? God justifies; Christ died. Who shall
separate us from the love of

God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord? Shall peril or the sword? etc.” “No,
in all these things we are

more than conquerors through Him who loved us.”

After these things there follows the word

(“I am sure,” “I am persuaded”). It is clear that that

man is mad, though there’s method in his madness, as the saying goes, who
attempts to explain this whole speech as referring to uncertainty. And
among the papalists themselves no one has yet dared to

say that Paul in Rom. 8 is in doubt also concerning his own salvation,
except that the impudence of the

Jesuits tried this. This impudence Andrada strives not only to equal but
even to surpass.

13 Third: The teaching of the true meaning of the sacraments offers the
most convincing arguments

concerning the believers’ assurance of salvation against the uncertainty of

the papalists. For it is certain that the Son of God through His institution
added these signs called sacraments to the promise of grace

in order that the promise of the Gospel should not only be set forth in a
general way but that in the action of the sacraments that general promise
might be offered, conveyed, and sealed to each individual

who uses them in faith, and that He did this in order that the infirmity of
faith, which can hardly sustain itself through the general and bare promise
to hope against hope, should be supported and strengthened

through the power of the sacraments. Thus in Rom. 4:11 circumcision is

called a seal of the righteousness of faith. Gal. 3:27: “As many of you as
were baptized … have put on Christ.” 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism is an appeal
… for a clear conscience.” In the use of the Lord’s Supper the Son of God

says to the individuals who approach in a worthy manner: “Take, eat! This
is My body which is given

for you. This cup is the New Testament, etc.” Thus the prayer of
Damascenus says of the reception of
the sacrament: “Grant that I may receive it as an earnest of the future life
and kingdom.” How comforting is the promise concerning absolution: “If
you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven, etc.”

“Whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” From this
Gerson rightly argues that the

absolution should not be pronounced in the form of a wish but that, for the
sake of certainty, it should be pronounced in the indicative mood, as Nathan
employs this form of absolution: “The Lord also has put

away your sin.” And Christ in Luke 7:50: “Your faith has saved you; go in
peace,” in Matt. 9:2: “Take

heart, My son; your sins are forgiven.” These sweet consolations are not
only shaken but are completely

taken away from consciences through this papalist uncertainty.

14 Fourth: Very strong arguments against the uncertainty of the papalists

are taken from the testimonies of Scripture concerning the sealing of the
faithful through the Holy Spirit. Eph. 1:13.

“Having believed, you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, which is
the guarantee of our inheritance.” 2 Cor. 1:22: “It is God who has put His
seal upon us and given us His Spirit in our hearts

as a guarantee.” Eph. 4:30: “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom
you were sealed for the day

of redemption,” etc.

The emphases of the words “sealing” and

(“earnest money,” “guarantee”) most beautifully

confirm this teaching. For no one questions that we seal those things
concerning which we want to remove all doubt, and make them as sure as
possible to the people whom they concern, and, indeed, that
the seal is applied for this purpose that all doubt and uncertainty which
might occur may be removed

through the sealing. Nor does the sealing with the Spirit in the individual
believers pertain only to a general persuasion; but in order that each
individual may judge that the promise is firm and sure to him,

and this against the uncertainty which naturally inheres in our hearts, God
gives this infinitely precious and firm seal, namely, the Holy Spirit Himself.

The other word is

, which is certainly of Hebrew origin. It signifies a mortgage, security, or

token, whatever it is by which suretyship is ratified and confirmed; its

purpose is certainly not that there should be doubt concerning it but that
men may have unwavering faith in it. By this word also hostages

are designated in 2 Kings 14:14, and in Gen. 38:17 it is used in the way the
Latins use the term arrah,

for a certain part of the full price, by means of which the confidence is
established that the remaining sum will be fully paid.

These terms afford the sweetest comfort. For we are saved, but in hope
(Rom. 8:24-25), and in the

meantime faith is shaken and battered by various trials. In order that we

may not on account of this become uncertain with respect to the good will
of God toward us, the remission of sins, the adoption,

salvation, and eternal life, He has given us as it were a hostage, pledge, and
earnest money, not an angel or anything created, but the Holy Spirit
Himself, who is of one essence with the Father and the Son, in

order that we may be able to rest, despite all doubt, in the assurance of our
salvation which is to be revealed to us. These metaphors are explained
elsewhere in clear statements. 1 John 5:10: “He who believes in the Son of
God has the testimony in himself.” Rom. 8:16: “The Spirit Himself bears
witness

with our spirit that we are children of God.” Gal. 4:6: “God has sent the
Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba Father.’” 1 Cor. 2:12: “We
have received the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the
gifts bestowed on us by God.” Eph. 1:18: “Having the eyes of your heart
enlightened, that you may know what is the hope of our inheritance, etc.”
Therefore the decree of the

Council of Trent concerning the uncertainty of true faith is a great insult to

the Spirit of grace.

Of these most comforting statements Andrada says that it is said

ridiculously rather than intelligently,

that the believers are made certain of their reconciliation also in

consequence of this, that the Holy Spirit testifies to this inwardly in the
heart. For he says that without a special revelation no one can be certain
that this witness, which many feel in their mind, is the voice of the Holy
Spirit. It is, indeed, certain that not all human thoughts and impulses are
movements and impulses of the Holy Spirit, but because the Word of the
Gospel is the ministry of the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:8; John 6:63), and since the
Spirit is received by hearing with faith (Gal. 3:5), therefore it is certain that
the witness in the mind of the believers, conceived through faith according
to the promise of the Gospel, is the sealing of the Holy Spirit, as Paul says,
“After you believed you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit” (Eph.
1:13-14).

Andrada, however, does not want to have these things judged according to
the Word of promise but wants us to look for other, special revelations,
without which, according to him the confidence of the faithful, also the
sealing of the Spirit itself, of which Paul speaks, is doubtful and uncertain,
and perhaps even false.

15 Fifth: The same is proved by the examples of the saints, as Paul says of
Abraham, Rom. 4:18: “In hope he believed against hope.” He did not
become weak in faith, nor did he waver through mistrust with respect to the
promise of God, but he was strengthened in faith, fully convinced that God
was able

to do what He had promised. That is why his faith was “reckoned to him as
righteousness.” These are

not mere words but bolts of lightning against the decree of Trent, which
says that nobody’s sins are forgiven who with confidence relies on the
remission of sins according to the promise. But Paul says:

“Therefore it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Paul is not speaking

of general assent but of the

application to an individual, namely, to Abraham.

David says, Ps. 23:4: “Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of
death, I fear no evil; for

Thou art with me.” Ps. 27:1: “The Lord is my … salvation; whom shall I
fear? … Of whom shall I be

afraid?” Ps. 31:1: “In Thee, O Lord, do I seek refuge; let me never be put to
shame.” Likewise, Ps.

125:1: “Those who trust in the Lord are like Mount Zion, which cannot be
moved but abides forever.”

Paul asks, Rom. 8:33-38: “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect?
… Who is to condemn? …

Who shall separate?, etc. … For I am sure that nothing in all creation will
be able to separate us from

the love of God with which He loves us in Christ Jesus, our Lord.” Luke
7:48-50: “Your sins are forgiven … Go in peace; your faith has saved you.”
Matt. 9:2: “Take heart, My son; your sins are forgiven.”

16 Sixth: Because doubt conflicts with confidence, it is reproved in express

words in Scripture. Matt.
6:30: “O men of little faith.” Matt. 14:31: “O man of little faith, why did
you doubt?” He uses the word

, which is used to describe that state where the mind is driven hither and
thither by moods, so

that it does not remain with one opinion. So it is used in Aristotle, Ethics,
Bk. 7, ch. 2. And it is the same as what the papalists say, that hope indeed
assents on account of credible reasons to one side, but

yet with fear of the other side. In Rom. 4:20; James 1:6; and Mark 11:23 the
word

(“to

contend,” “fight it out”; “to doubt,” “hesitate”) is contrasted to faith.

Buddeus thinks that this way of speaking results from the fact that those
who doubt, dispute and debate, as it were, with themselves in

alternating opinions. And the papalists clearly invent such a faith.

In Luke 12:29, in the passage about littleness of faith, the Lord uses the
word

(“to be

raised up,” “to be elated with hope,” “to doubt”) which designates a mind
suspended by fluctuating and
anxious doubt as to how a matter will turn out, as those things which are
suspended high in the air are

driven hither and thither by the slightest disturbance. Thus Thucydides says
in Bk. 2: “All Greece was

in suspense.” The Septuagint, in Ps. 42:8; 93:4; and 88:8, uses this word of
the mighty surging of the

sea. James 1:6-8 explains this figure: “Let him ask in faith, with no
doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and
tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he … will

receive anything from the Lord.” However, James is not simply speaking of
unbelief, but he uses the word

(“to doubt”), of which we have already spoken. Therefore he simply

condemns the

Tridentine uncertainty. Let the reader observe also that the Tridentine
decree makes doubt a virtue of faith, whereas Paul, Rom. 4:19-21, ascribes
it to unbelief. Also according to Rom. 14:23 these are synonymous:
“whatever does not proceed from faith” and “what is done with a doubting
conscience.”

And he declares that doubt is not only in itself a fault but that it also
contaminates other works so that they become sins.

17 Seventh: It is useful also to observe whence this doctrine is taken which

commands true believers to be uncertain concerning the remission of their
sins. For in Matt. 9:3 the scribes do not doubt concerning the general
promise of the remissions of sins, but they accuse Christ of blasphemy
because

He teaches that He so certainly promises and bestows the remission of sins

to believers that He commands the paralytic

, that is, to be of a cheerful and tranquil mind. Thus in Luke 7:36-50,

when Christ absolved the woman: “Your sins are forgiven,” and
commanded her to go in peace, the Pharisees mutter that this is blasphemy.

The Novatians also did not simply deny the remission of sins to those who
returned after they had fallen but indeed commanded them to have good
hope, but not to conclude for certain that their sins either could or should be
remitted to them. For thus their error is described in Tripartita, Bk. 9: “That
the fallen should, indeed, be invited to repent; but that remission should be
left to the power of God.” So also Ambrose says in De poenitentia, Bk. 1,
ch. 2: “The Novatians say that they reserve the power to remit offenses to
God alone. But Christ commanded the disciples to forgive sins.” And in Bk.
2, ch. 5,

he says that, to establish their doubt concerning the remission of sins, the
Novatians had appealed to Acts 8:22, where Peter says: “Repent, if perhaps
the iniquity of your sin may be forgiven.” Here, they

say, Peter did not state definitely that sins are forgiven to the penitent.
Ambrose, however, replies that Peter speaks this way because Simon
Magus did not sincerely believe but was planning deceit. However

concerning the phrase (to which they appealed) he says: “I neither maintain
that Peter was doubtful, nor

do I believe that the whole matter should be choked off by a prejudice based
on one word. For Christ

also says, John 8:19: “If you knew Me, perhaps you would know also My
Father.” 87 Ambrose adds:

“Peter could not have been in doubt concerning the gift of Christ, who had
given him the power to forgive sins.” Let the reader observe that the
Novatians in their controversy did not simply argue that

God would forgive sins to no one who repented after a fall, but according to
Ambrose, this was the question in controversy, whether a minister of the
church to whom the power to forgive sins had been
entrusted should say with certainty to those who repented that their sins are
forgiven or whether he should set it before them as uncertain; likewise,
whether the penitent who had embraced Christ in true

faith should conclude certainly, or, indeed, should doubt, that his sins are
forgiven. With this description of the Novatian controversy the papalist
doctrine of doubt should be compared. I will add also this, that

another spurious book issued under the name of Ambrose, On Exhortation

to Repentance, says: “I can give repentance; security I cannot give. I do not
say that he will be damned, but neither do I say: he will be acquitted. I do
not presume; I do not promise; I simply do not know the will of God. Either
it will be

forgiven you or it will not be forgiven. Which of these will happen to you I
do not know.”

This certainly is clearly in conflict with the statement which Ambrose

defends from the Scripture against the Novatians. Let the reader observe
also this, that many spurious statements have been interpolated into the
writings of the fathers in order that the less educated people may be more
easily deceived through the appearance of antiquity.

18 Finally: There are found also very clear testimonies of ancient writers
which show that the dogma of the papalists concerning uncertainty is an
innovation and false. We shall note down only those in which it is clearly
seen that the very same things were then objected to the assurance of faith
which are

now being urged and brought up by the papalists.

For with respect to the objection of arrogance and pride, Augustine says in
Sermon 28, De verbis Domini: “All your sins are forgiven you. Therefore
do not trust in your own work but in the grace of Christ. For the apostle
says: ‘By grace you are saved.’ Therefore there is here not arrogance but
faith; to declare that you have been accepted is not pride but consecration.”
Concerning the objection of unworthiness and indisposition, Augustine
speaks thus on Ps. 88: “This God has said; this He has promised; if this is
not enough, this He has sworn. Therefore, because the promise is sure not
according

to our merits but according to His grace, no one should preach with
trepidation that concerning which

there can be no doubt.” Bernard says in Sermon 3, De fragmentis septem:

“Three things I consider as the things in which my entire hope stands: the
love which adopted me, the truth of the promise, the power of restoration.
Let my foolish thinking murmur as it will, saying, Who are you? or, How
great is

that glory? or, By what merits do you hope to obtain it? And I confidently
reply: I know whom I have

believed, and am certain that He has with great love adopted me, that He is
truthful in His promise, that

He is mighty in performance. This is a threefold cord which is hard to

break, which was sent down for

us all the way into this prison from our fatherland; I pray earnestly that we
may hold it firmly, that it may raise us up, that it may draw us, and bring us
where we shall see the glory of the great God.”

With respect to the objections taken from Joel and Jonah, Gregory of
Nazianzus, in a sermon of consolation in a disaster from hail, replies thus:
“Who knows whether He will turn, and repent, and leave a blessing? But
this I know clearly: I am a man who vouches for it that God is merciful.” To
the

statement of Solomon, which is always set in opposition by the adversaries,

Bernard most beautifully replies in Sermon 5, In dedicationem: “‘Who will
be able to be saved?’ the disciples ask. With men this is impossible, but not
with God. But now that we are certain of the possibility, what do we do
concerning the will? Who knows whether he is worthy of love or of hate?
Who knows the mind of the
Lord? Here, then, it is clearly necessary that faith should come to our aid.
Here the truth must assist us, that what is hidden in the heart of the Father
concerning us may be revealed to us through His Spirit;

and that, when His Spirit bears witness, He may persuade our spirit that we
are children of God.” But

He persuades by calling and justifying freely through faith.

With regard to the objection of presumption Augustine replies, In

Evangelium Johannis tractatus, 22:

“We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, and do you dare to
promise yourself that you

will not come into judgment? God forbid, you say, that I should dare to
promise this to myself, but I believe Him who promises: ‘He will not come
into judgment.’ Therefore, I do not come into judgment,

not through my presumption but through His promise.”

To the objection of a general faith, Bernard replies in Sermon 2, De

annuntiatione: “It is necessary, first of all, to believe that you cannot have
the promise except by kindness of God. However, add that

you believe also this, that through Him your sins are forgiven. This is the
witness which the Holy Spirit gives in your heart: ‘Your sins are forgiven
you.’ “

That doubt and uncertainty conflict with faith and justification Hilary
declares, commenting on Matt.

5: “The kingdom of heaven, of which our Lord declares that it is founded

on Him, He wants us to hope

for without any ambiguity of an uncertain will, because otherwise, if faith is

uncertain, there is no justification by faith.”
Cyprian, in Treatise 4, De mortalitate, says: “What room is there here for
anxiety and worry? Who is alarmed or sad under these circumstances,
except he who lacks hope and faith? For to fear death belongs to him who is
not willing to go to Christ; not to want to go to Christ belongs to him who
does

not believe that he begins to reign with Christ. For it is written that the just
lives by faith. If you are righteous and live by faith, if you truly believe in
God, why do you not, as one who will be with Christ

and is sure of the promise of the Lord, embrace Him?” Likewise: “God
promises you immortality when

you depart from this world, and you doubt and waver? This is not to know
God at all; this is to offend

Christ, the Lord of the faithful, through the sin of unbelief; this is not to
have in the house of faith the faith established in the church.

19 These basic facts are surely so firm and clear that it is surprising to find
men, and, indeed, such as boast of the name church, who dare to prescribe
the contrary, and, indeed, with the pronouncement of

the anathema to deprive consciences of true, firm, and sure comfort, in

order that they may again thrust

men into the former torture of conscience.

20 But you say: They also have reasons for their doubt. I reply: We said
previously that, because they frankly teach only the Law, that is, that a
person is justified by his qualities and works, they cannot bring about
anything else by their doctrine except perpetual uncertainty, and finally
despair. But this has been explained above. We shall now examine the other
objections.

21 There is an easy answer to what they say first, that heretics who defend
false and blasphemous opinions, also Epicureans who are living in crimes
without repentance, can imagine for themselves such
a persuasion of certainty. We are not speaking of a false, or a dead or
devilish, faith but of true faith and of true believers. Therefore I shall say
nothing more than that it is a strange argument, on account of false faith to
make true faith uncertain and to destroy it.

22 In the second place they set up against confidence the consideration of

our own infirmity and unworthiness. And with a great show they enlarge
upon what a pleasing virtue true humility of the mind

is in the sight of God, acknowledging and confessing its own unworthiness

when it must come before

His face. I reply: Our faith most certainly has, and must have, joined to it
true humility, which earnestly considers, acknowledges, and confesses our
own unworthiness, so that it does not dare to set up our own worthiness
against the judgment of God in the article of justification but concludes in
all seriousness and prays with all its heart: “Enter not into judgment with
Thy servant, for no man living is

righteous before Thee.” However, this humility does not make faith
doubtful and wavering, because it

does not keep the conscience under the Law, that it should set up its own
worthiness against the judgment of God, but impels and urges it to seek
another promise in which the Father freely, for the sake of His Son, the
Mediator, gives reconciliation to the believers in order that, because it
cannot find in its own worthiness that on which it may safely rest before the
judgment of God, it may apprehend that Mediator, in whose wounds there is
firm and sure safety for true believers, as Bernard says.

23 In the third place, they set up the doctrine of predestination, or election,

against the assurance of salvation, and in order that they may do this with
some show, they say that rash presumption with respect to the hidden
mystery of predestination must be avoided. It is indeed true, and this is also
diligently taught among us, that one should not inquire into the secret
counsel of God, in order to establish from it whether we are in the number
of the elect; for this is to fall headlong into many errors and finally into
despair itself. For concerning election one must not judge according to the
thoughts of

reason or doubtful speculations about what has been decreed in the secret
counsel of God about every man’s salvation or damnation, but from the
Word of God, in which God has revealed His will to us; not,

however, from the Law, which preaches about our works, merits, and
worthiness, but from the Gospel.

But the Gospel speaks of election, not as the poets tell fables concerning the
tablets of the Fates, that

some are predestined to life, others to death, concerning which we plainly

know nothing for certain, whether we are in the number of those who will
be saved or of those who will be damned. But the doctrine of predestination
sets forth the decrees established by God and revealed later in the Word
with

respect to the causes and the mode of salvation or damnation, as follows:

1. The decree of God concerning the redemption of the human race through
the obedience and

suffering of Christ the Mediator.

2. The decree of calling through the ministry of the Word both the Jews and
the Gentiles to partake of

the merit of Christ for salvation.

3. The decree of God that by His Spirit, through the hearing of the Word,
He wants to work in the

hearts of men that they may repent and believe the Gospel.

4. The decree of God that He wants to justify and save those who, when
they feel their sins and the
wrath of God, flee in faith to the throne of grace and embrace Christ the
Mediator, who is set forth in the Gospel; but that He will damn those who
reject the Word, despising and not embracing the promise.

24 This is a summary and analysis of the doctrine of predestination, as it is

revealed in the Word. It does not teach true believers that they should doubt
whether they are in the number of the elect, but as

Paul does in Rom. 8:30, it establishes this series of steps: “Those whom He
predestined He also called,

and those whom He called He also justified.”

Therefore, those whom God calls and justifies certainly ought to conclude
that they are elected. And

if the reader will examine the statements of Scripture concerning election,

he will see clearly that the doctrine of predestination was revealed in the
Scripture not that it should render doubtful and uncertain

the salvation of believers but that it should be a basis of certainty. Eph. 1:4:
“He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world.” 2 Tim. 2:19:
“God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: ‘The

Lord knows those who are His.’” John 10:27-28: “My sheep hear My voice
… and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of My
hand.” Rom. 8:28, 34, 35: “Those who are called according to God’s
purpose.” Therefore, “who is to condemn? Who shall separate us?” Rom.
11:29:

“For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” 2 Tim. 1:7-9: “God did
not give us a spirit of timidity

… For He has called us in virtue of His own purpose and the grace which
He gave us in Christ Jesus

ages ago, etc.”

25 It was not my intention to explain the entire doctrine of predestination at
this time, but I only wanted to show that the election of God, as it is
revealed in the Word of God, does not make uncertain

but confirms and makes sure the certainty of salvation and the confidence
of the believers. For it is wrong when the Council of Trent says, in ch. 12,
that it cannot be known from the Word of God whom

God has chosen for Himself, unless a special revelation beyond and apart
from the Word is added.

Neither is this true, that no true believer can establish with certainty from
the Word of God without a

special revelation that he is in the number of predestined. For this conflicts

with Scripture, as we have

shown. But I am not ignorant of the fact that many inextricable and hideous
things are invented concerning predestination by confused minds, but I have
set forth this teaching briefly in what I consider a very simple form.

26 In the fourth place, they also raise an objection based on the teaching
concerning perseverance.

They say that even if you grant that believers are certain of present grace,
nevertheless, no one is certain whether he will persevere to the end. And
because only those are saved who persevere to the end, therefore there can
be no sure confidence concerning the salvation of believers. I reply: That
many do

not persevere but fall from grace both the Scripture and experience teaches.
But this does not result

from this or because of this, that God does not want to preserve to the end
the believers whom He has once received into grace; but it happens because
many drive out the Holy Spirit and destroy faith through carnal security,
want of confidence, and works of the flesh. Therefore men must not be
taught
that, no matter how they conduct themselves, they cannot fall from the
grace of God. For it is written,

Rom. 11:22: “Provided you continue in His kindness.” Heb. 3:14: “If only
we hold our first confidence

firm to the end.” But men are to be admonished that they should through the
Spirit mortify the deeds of

the flesh and firmly adhere to Christ by faith and through the use of the
Word and of the sacraments become more and more united with Him and
seek from God the gift of perseverance, and wrestle, lest

the wantonness of the flesh drive out the gift of perseverance.

Therefore they should not be uncertain concerning their perseverance, but

conclude according to the

promise, Phil. 1:6: “He who began a good work in you will bring it to
completion at the day of Jesus

Christ.” For we have been called to everlasting fellowship with Christ, not
in order that He may soon

cast off again those whom He has joined to Himself, but, as He says: “They
shall never perish, and no

one shall snatch them out of My hand.” 1 Cor. 1:8: “God will sustain you to
the end, guiltless in the day

of our Lord Jesus Christ.” David says: “I shall never be put to shame.” And
John says: “I write this to

you that you may know that you have eternal life.” Also: “We know that
when He appears, we shall be

like Him.” Rom. 8:35-39: “Who shall separate us? … I am sure that neither
things present, nor things to
come shall separate us.” 2 Tim. 4:8: “Henceforth there is laid up for me the
crown of righteousness, which the Lord … will award to me on that day.”
Rom. 5:2: “We rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God.” These
statements show clearly that the sure hope concerning perseverance is not
suspended between heaven and earth in doubt and uncertainty.

27 In the fifth place, they urge these and similar statements of Scripture. 1
Cor. 10:12: “Let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.”
Phil. 2:12: “Work out your own salvation with fear and

trembling.” Rom. 11:20: “Do not become proud, but stand in awe.” 1 Peter
1:17: “Conduct yourselves

with fear throughout the time of your exile.” Prov. 28:14: “Blessed is the
man who fears the Lord always.”

With respect to these passages the answer is general. They admonish us that
we should not, through

the persuasion of the certainty of salvation, fall into carnal security, by

which faith itself is choked and extinguished. Nor may we indulge in vile
lusts, for in this way faith is cast out. And unless we remain in the love of
God, we shall fall from it (Rom. 11:22). For faith does not remain in those
who without repentance indulge in vile passions. Therefore these statements
are not a discourse about the uncertainty

of faith but exhortations lest a faith which has the assurance of salvation be
extinguished through security or driven out through actions of the flesh but
that it may be constantly exercised through contending against the flesh,
lest through its willfulness grace, the Holy Spirit, and the certainty of
salvation be cast away. Certain of these statements also place before the
eyes of the believers their own

weakness, not in order to cast faith into doubt but that the believers may not
through reliance on their

gifts grow proud but may depend wholly on the Lord and may more
ardently and firmly adhere to the
mercy promised for Christ’s sake.

28 In the sixth place, Andrada uses also this argument against confidence.
“Paul says: ‘I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby
acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.’

Therefore, Paul was not certain of his justification.” I reply: Paul not only
doubted whether he was justified before God by his newness and works, but
he expressly says: “I am not thereby acquitted.”

And he adds the reason: Even though his conscience may not reprove him
and he may not be open to

criticism before men, he can nevertheless not stand before the judgment of
God with that righteousness.

Therefore he seeks another righteousness in the obedience and merit of

Christ which he can set up against the judgment and wrath of God, in order
that he may be reconciled, adopted, and accepted to life

eternal. And of this justification he does not speak as if it were something

uncertain, but he says, Rom.

5:1-2: “Since we are justified by faith, we have peace. … By faith we have

access to the grace in which

we stand and in which we glory.” Rom. 8:33, 34: “Who shall condemn? It is
God who justifies, etc.”

Therefore Paul does not take the confidence and certainty of justification
away from the true faith in Christ, but he does take it away from his works,
and that not merely by casting doubt on it but absolutely, not only from
those works which he had done before his conversion but also from those
done after he had been renewed through the Spirit and had advanced to that
point in the renewal that he
could say, “I am not aware of anything against myself”; yet he adds: “I am
not thereby acquitted. It is

the Lord who judges me,” whose judgment requires such perfection that he
who fails in one thing is guilty of all.

29 The statement of Solomon, Eccl. 9:1, “Whether it is love or hate man

does not know,” Andrada

explains in this way, that man’s way of life is so obscure that he does not
know what he deserves more,

whether hatred or love. Is it therefore doubtful in the church whether the

crimes of the Sodomites displeased God? Paul certainly repeats a number of
times with great emphasis: “They that do such things will not inherit the
kingdom of God.” And Solomon himself says soon after in the same
chapter:

“For God has already approved what you do.” What then, you say, is it that
Solomon says: “Whether it

is love or hate man does not know”? I reply: Everyone is himself the best
interpreter of his own works.

Solomon soon adds the reason for his statement. A man knows neither love
nor hatred because all things

turn out the same for the righteous and for the wicked, therefore “the hearts
of men are full of evil,” that is, from the external events in this life one
cannot and must not establish whether we please God, for

this way of judging misleads the ungodly. But it does not follow that
because this cannot be established

from the events, therefore also the faith that proceeds from the Word of God
ought to be uncertain. For

in that very same book it is also said: “From the external events it cannot be
known whether the soul of
man differs from the beast, because the same end comes to both.”

Therefore Bernard rightly says that reason of itself and from events cannot
establish anything concerning the love of God toward us, but that faith both
can and should establish this from the truth of

the divine Word.

30 The passage in the fifth chapter of Sirach (v. 5), I have said, has been
corrupted by the monks, who have made it say: “Be not without fear
concerning the propitiated sin,” in order that they might be

able to establish their doubt from it. Andrada, however, contends that this
can be proved also from the

Greek text, because that is said to be propitiated which has already been
pardoned. Therefore faith must

also doubt after it has already received the reconciliation. But in Greek
there is not the past participle but

, “concerning propitiation.” The text explains itself. For it says: “Do not say
I have

sinned, and what has happened to me?” And afterward: “Be not without
fear, so that you heap sin upon

sin, just because the mercy of the Lord is great.” Therefore he is preaching
against carnal security, that no one should heap up sin without repentance
because a propitiation has been made, or that no one should be so secure
that he puts off the reconciliation. These things are true, and we also
diligently teach them. But from this it does not follow: Therefore faith
ought to be uncertain concerning the propitiation

for sin which it has received.

31 These basic facts are clear, firm, and solid. The true answer to the
objection that this doctrine is misused by many for security is that the truth
of the doctrine must not be changed on account of the misuse, but the
instruction of Paul about rightly dividing the Word of God must be
observed. For these

consolations are not set before the impenitent; for them are the thunderbolts
(Eph. 5:5-7; Gal. 5:19 to

21; Col. 3:5-6; 1 Cor. 6:9-10: “Those who do these things will not inherit
the kingdom of God.”).

We set before those who with trembling flee by faith to the throne of grace
not uncertainty but sure

and firm consolation from the promise of the Gospel. But because there is
in the believers still flesh and spirit, the old man and the new, these
admonitions are always inculcated, lest the promise of the Gospel

be misused to confirm security and the wilfulness of the flesh. But those
who despise these admonitions

and misuse this teaching should consider what is written 2 Peter 3:16:
“They twist the Scriptures to their own destruction.”

32 Finally, this reminder must be added, that we are not speaking of some
Platonic idea of certainty of faith which, in this infirmity of the flesh, may
not at all be tempted by doubt and which feels no trepidation; as if a weak
and sluggish faith which does not feel perfect confidence and absolute
certainty were to be judged as not being true faith. For we have shown
above, that faith, no matter how weak, if

only it apprehends its true object, is true faith.

But you say: Why, then, is the doctrine of the confidence and certainty of
faith set forth in this infirmity of the flesh? I reply: For two reasons:

1. That we may know that whatever doubt or trepidation is felt is not of the
nature of faith but belongs to those statements: “In my flesh nothing good
dwells.” “When I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.” Therefore the
believers do not display the filth of their doubts before God as virtues of
faith but acknowledge that to the degree that faith is a work and a virtue in
us, it is imperfect, and they pray that those impurities which bespatter faith
from the flesh may be covered and disregarded. And yet, on account of the
object which faith apprehends in that infirmity they have a sure and firm
consolation.

2. It is set forth for this reason, that we may not indulge in doubting but
may wrestle with the infirmity of faith; that in this way we may ever rise up
to certainty; that we may not suffer our confidence to be wrested from us
but that it may be strengthened and may grow and be increased.

Therefore God has, for the exercise of faith, set forth the remedies of His
Word, of the sacraments, and

of prayer. Yes, for this reason the Spirit helps our infirmities that faith may
be able to struggle through, lest the smoking flax be extinguished, and that
in its very infirmity faith may nevertheless have a sure

and firm consolation, as Paul says: “It is not so much that I have
apprehended as that I have been apprehended; it is not so much that I know
as that I am known.”

33 Thus against all sophistical objections the teaching of the certainty of

our reconciliation is clear, true, useful, and necessary according to the
promise of the Gospel, in which believers rest, or at least try to rest, in true
confidence.

86 Chemnitz here has the strange expression: When an anchor falls into
terram fabulosam. Because this is opposed to firm, retentive ground, we
have translated “quicksand,” as most nearly approximating
the author’s meaning.

87 The translation here reproduces the sense of the Vulgate.

Tenth Topic

CONCERNING GOOD WORKS

From the Decree of the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent

Chapter XI

CONCERNING THE KEEPING OF THE COMMANDMENTS AND

CONCERNING ITS NECESSITY AND

POSSIBILITY

No one, however much he may be justified, should believe that he is

exempt from the keeping of the

commandments; no one should make use of that rash saying, which was
also prohibited by the fathers

under the anathema, that it is impossible for a justified man to keep the
precepts of God. For God does

not command impossible things to be observed but by commanding

admonishes that you do what you

can and that you pray for what you cannot do, and He aids you that you
may be able, for His commandments are not heavy, but His yoke is easy,
and His burden light. For those who are children of

God love Christ, and those who love Him, as He Himself testifies, keep His
sayings, which they can assuredly perform with divine help. It must be
granted that when in this mortal life men, be they ever so
holy and just, fall at least into light sins daily, which are also called venial
sins, they do not on this account cease to be just. For their cry, which is both
humble and true, is: Forgive us our debts. For this reason the just ought to
feel the more obligated to walk in the way of righteousness, because freed
from

sin and made servants of God, they are able, living soberly, justly, and
piously in the world, to go forward through Christ Jesus, through whom
they have had access to that grace. For God will not forsake those once
justified by His grace, unless He is previously forsaken by them. Therefore
no one

should flatter himself with faith alone, thinking that he is made an heir by
faith alone and that he will

attain the inheritance even though he does not suffer with Christ that he
may also be glorified with Him.

For Christ also Himself, as the apostle says, although He was the Son of
God, learned obedience from

the things He suffered, and being made perfect, He became to all who obey
Him the cause of eternal salvation. Therefore the apostle himself exhorts
the justified, saying: “Do you not know that those who

run in a race do indeed all run, but one receives the prize? So run that you
may obtain it. I therefore so run, not as if for something uncertain; I so
fight, not as one who beats the air; but I chastise my body

and bring it into subjection, lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I
myself become a castaway.”

Likewise the prince of the apostles, Peter, says: “Labor all the more, that
through good works you may

make your calling and election sure. For if you do this you will never sin.”
From this it is certain that
those men oppose the doctrine of the orthodox religion who say that the
righteous sin at least venially in every good work; or, what is even more
intolerable, that they merit eternal punishment, also those who

say that the just sin in all their works, if in them, together with the aim that
above all things God may be glorified, they also look upon the eternal
reward when they arouse themselves from their lethargy and

exhort themselves to run the race, since it is written: “I have inclined my

heart to do Thy justifications on account of the reward.” And of Moses the
apostle says: “He looked at the reward.”

Chapter XVI

CONCERNING THE FRUIT OF JUSTIFICATION, THAT IS, THE

MERIT OF GOOD WORKS AND THE NATURE

OF THEIR MERIT

When, therefore, men have been justified in this manner, regardless whether
they always preserved the accepted grace, or whether they regained it after
losing it, the words of the apostle must be set before them: “Abound in
every good work, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. For
God

is not unjust that He should forget your work and the love which you have
shown in His name. And do

not lose your confidence, which has a great reward.” And for this reason
life eternal is to be set before

those who work well, both as a grace which is mercifully promised to the
sons of God through Christ

Jesus and as a reward in accord with the promise of God Himself which is
to be rendered faithfully for

their good works and merits. For this is that crown of righteousness of
which the apostle knew that it
was laid up for him after his fight and race, to be given to him by the just
Judge, and not only to him but also to all who love His coming. For since
Christ Jesus continually pours virtue into those who are justified, as the
head into the members and as the vine into the branches, and this virtue
always precedes, accompanies, and follows their good works, and without it
they could by no means be acceptable and meritorious before God, we must
believe that nothing further is lacking to the justified to prevent their being
accounted by means of these works which were done in God, to have fully
satisfied

the divine Law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited in
their time also to obtain

eternal life, if they have departed in grace, since Christ our Savior says: “If
anyone shall drink of the water which I will give him, he shall not thirst in
eternity, but it shall be in him a fountain of water springing up into eternal
life.” Therefore neither is our own justice established as our own and as
coming from ourselves, nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated. For
that justice which is called

ours because we are justified through the fact that it inheres in us, that same
is also the justice of God, because it is infused into us by God through the
merit of Christ.

Neither must this be omitted, that, although so much is attributed to good

works in the sacred writings, Christ promises that also he who shall give a
drink of cool water to one of the least of His shall not lack his reward and
the apostle testifies that that which at present is only a momentary and light
affliction works for us above measure an exceeding and eternal weight of
glory, nevertheless, it should

be far from a Christian man either to trust or to glory in himself, and not in
the Lord, whose goodness is so great toward all men that He wants the
merits which are His gifts to be their own. And since we all

offend in many things, everyone ought to keep before his eyes not only the
mercy and goodness but also
the severity and judgment of God, nor should anyone justify himself, even
though he is not aware of anything against himself; for the whole life of
man is to be examined and judged not by a human judgment but by the
judgment of God, who will set in the light the hidden things of darkness and
make

manifest the counsels of the hearts, and then there shall be praise to every
man from God, who, as it is

written, “Will render to every man according to his works.”

This is the Catholic doctrine of justification; unless a person receives it

faithfully and firmly, he cannot be justified; it has pleased the holy synod to
subjoin these canons in order that all may know not

only what they ought to hold and follow but also what they ought to avoid
and flee.

CANON XVIII

If anyone says that it is impossible also for a justified man and for one who
is established under grace

to keep the commandments of God, let him be anathema.

CANON XIX

If anyone says that nothing is commanded in the Gospel except faith, that
other things are indifferent,

neither commanded nor forbidden but free, or that the Ten Commandments
do not concern Christians at

all, let him be anathema.

CANON XX

If anyone says that a person who is justified and ever so much perfected is
not bound to observe the
commandments of God and of the church, but only to believe, as if the
Gospel were indeed a bare and

absolute promise of eternal life without the condition of keeping the

commandments, let him be anathema.

CANON XXI

If anyone says that Christ Jesus was given to men by God as a redeemer in
whom they should believe, and not also as a lawgiver whom they should
obey, let him be anathema.

CANON XXV

If anyone says that a righteous man sins at least venially in every good
work, or, what is more intolerable, mortally, and that for this reason he
merits eternal punishments; and that the only reason he is not damned for
this is that God does not impute these good works 88 to damnation, let him
be anathema.

CANON XXVI

If anyone says that the righteous ought not to expect and hope for their
good works which were done

in God an eternal reward from God through His mercy and the merit of
Jesus Christ, if through well-

doing and the keeping of the divine commandments they persevere to the
end, let him be anathema.

CANON XXXI

If anyone says that the justified sins when he does well with a view to an
eternal reward, let him be

anathema.

CANON XXXII
If anyone says that the good works of the justified person are in such a
manner the gifts of God that

they are not also the good merits of the justified person himself; or that the
justified person himself, through the good works which are done by him
through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ,

whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, life
eternal, and the obtaining of

eternal life itself, provided he has departed in grace, and also an increase of
glory, let him be anathema.

Examination

We shall not at this time institute a complete explanation of the topic of

good works but shall briefly

examine and explain those things which in the decrees of the Council of
Trent and in the explanations of

Andrada are argued against our churches. They can be comprehended under
four points.

I. Whether good works are to be done.

II. Which are the good works in which God wants the regenerate to exercise
their obedience.

III. Whether the obedience of the regenerate in this life is a perfect

fulfillment of the Law.

IV. Concerning the merits and rewards of good works.

A modern translation of this canon reads as follows: “If anyone says that in
every good work the just

man sins at least venially … and that he is not damned for this reason only
because God does not impute these works unto damnation,” etc. H. J.
Schroeder, O. P., Canons and Decrees of the Council of

Trent (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1960), p. 45.

Chemnitz is therefore quoting according to the true sense of the canon, even
though there are two extra words.

88 The text of the canon, as quoted by Chemnitz, has ea bona opera. Smets
omits ea bona and simply has opera without any modifier.

THE FIRST QUESTION

Whether Good Works Are to Be Done

1 On this question there is no controversy whatever among us, except that

the papalists have for many years falsely and unjustly burdened our
churches with the misrepresentation, as if we prohibited truly

good works and condemned all zeal for them. The Council of Trent, in the
11th chapter, falsely accuses

us, as though we so deluded ourselves with the teaching of sola fide that we
consider ourselves to be altogether free from the observance of the
commandments of God. And in the 19th canon they covertly

ascribe to us the teaching that nothing is commanded except faith, that

everything else is indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden but free,
and that indeed in such a way, as if the teaching of the Decalog did not
concern Christians at all. These papalist misrepresentations have repeatedly
been truly

and earnestly refuted by our teachers. Indeed, the writings of our men, but
especially the sound of the

teaching which is daily heard in our churches, bears clear testimony before
the whole world, and it is
not unknown to the consciences also of the papalists that such things are
ascribed to us falsely. But they argue this question with such great pains in
order to deceive the ignorant, as if this, chiefly, were the controversy
between the papalists and us, whether good works are to be done. In order,
therefore, to refute this misrepresentation, some few things must be
repeated.

2 That this may be done the more briefly, I shall in a few words recite only
the chief points of the exhortations to zeal for good works which are
customarily set forth from the Scripture in our churches.

1. This is inculcated that God by no means gives license to the justified and
regenerate that they may

be free and secure and may dare to indulge in their corrupt desires, to
conform themselves to the wicked

world, to serve the devil and sin, to violate and tread underfoot 89 the
commandments of God. 1 Thess.

4:7: “God has not called us for uncleanness but in holiness.” Rom. 6:15:
“Are we to sin because we are

not under law but under grace? By no means!” Rom. 3:8: The damnation of
those who say “Let us do

evil that good may come out of it” is just.

2. This also is certain, that God does not want the justified and regenerate to
be idle, without good

works. Matt. 20:6: “Why do you stand here idle all day?” 2 Peter 1:8: “If
these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or
unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Matt. 3:10 and 7:19: “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down
and thrown into the fire.”
3. The statements of Scripture which commend zeal for good works to the
justified and regenerate are

neither doubtful nor obscure. Titus 2:14: “Christ gave Himself for us that
He might purify for Himself a

people of his own,”

, that is, one that would be with special zeal a follower of good works. Eph.

2:10: “We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works,
which God prepared

beforehand, that we should walk in them.” 2 Cor. 5:15: “Christ died for all,
that those who live might

live no longer for themselves but for Him who for their sake died and was
raised.” The sum of the matter is stated in Ps. 34:14: “Depart from evil and
do good.” 1 Peter 2:24: “Die to sin; live to God, or

to righteousness.” Eph. 4:22-24: “Put off the old man, and put on the new.”
Rom. 13:12: “Cast off the

works of darkness, and put on the armor of light.”

4. Scripture does not merely counsel this obedience in the justified and
regenerate, nor does it set it

forth as an indifferent and optional thing, but it teaches that it is necessary

on account of the will and command of God. Rom. 8:12: “We are debtors,
not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.” Rom.

13:8: “Owe no one anything, except to love one another.” Luke 17:10: “We
have only done what was

our duty.” 1 John 4:11: “We also ought to love one another.” 1 Thess. 4:3:
“This is the will of God, your sanctification.” Rom. 12:2: “Prove what is the
will of God.” John 13:34: “A new commandment I give
to you, that you love one another.” 1 John 4:21: “This commandment we
have from Him, that he who

loves God should love his brother also.”

5. Scripture adds that that is not true faith which does not work through
love. 1 John 4:20: “If anyone

says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar.” 1 Tim. 5:8: “If anyone
does not provide for his

relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is
worse than an unbeliever.”

James 2:17: “Faith without works is dead.”

6. To those who break the Law Scripture sets forth threats of corporal,
spiritual, and eternal punishments. 1 Thess. 4:6: “The Lord is an avenger in
all these things.” Ps. 89:31-32: “If they do not

keep my commandments, then I will punish their transgressions with the

rod.” Rom. 8:13: “If you live

according to the flesh, you will die.” Col. 3:6: “On account of these the
wrath of God is coming upon

the sons of disobedience.” 1 Tim. 1:19: “By rejecting conscience, certain

persons have made shipwreck

of their faith.” 2 Peter 1:9: “Whoever lacks these things is blind and
shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.” And
“those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

3 Therefore, because the teaching of the necessity of good works and

earnest admonitions to zeal for good works are diligently taught, urged, and
inculcated among us, whence, I ask, do the papalists take

occasion to weave that poisonous misrcpresentation, as if we prohibited and

condemned good works, or
at least made them optional? This the Tridentine fathers unmistakably
indicate in Canon 20. For because

we teach that the promise of the Gospel concerning the remission of sins
and eternal life does not depend on the condition of our observance of the
divine commandments but on the gratuitous mercy of

God on account of the obedience and merit of Christ the Mediator, the
papalists imagine that it follows

from this that the justified are not held to observance of the
commandments; as if the prophets and apostles forbade and condemned
zeal for good works when they teach (as we have shown) that men are

justified without works by gratuitous mercy, through faith, for the sake of
Christ the Mediator. For the

fact that our works are excluded from the article or transaction and business
of justification does not mean that there are no reasons whatever, or no use
for which they should be done. But it is a fancy of

the papalists that, if good works are not to be done in order that through
them we may merit reconciliation with God, adoption, and eternal life, then
they should rather be omitted. Thus they are truly mercenaries, who are not
willing to do anything freely as obedient children, but as mercenaries they
are willing to work slavishly only in hope and expectation of a reward. But
they should not ignore

what Augustine declares from the teaching of Scripture concerning this

kind of workers.

4 Although we, therefore, do not merit remission of sins, reconciliation,

adoption, and eternal life with our works, nevertheless, there are many true
and weighty reasons why the justified and regenerate

ought to live and walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
For it is the will and command of God that we, having been liberated,
should serve Him in righteousness and holiness before
Him (Luke 1:74-75), as we have shown above with testimonies from
Scripture. And this duty of the new obedience which has been begun in us
is not canceled or removed through the free imputation of

the righteousness of Christ, but out of that free reconciliation there arise the
most weighty and urgent

reasons for rendering the new obedience, some of which in the first place
have respect to God Himself,

such as are the testimonies of Scripture concerning God the Father, 1 Peter
1:14, 17: “If you invoke God

as Father, as obedient children, be holy, conducting yourselves with fear.” 1

John 3:2-3: “We are God’s

children now … And everyone who thus hopes in Him purifies himself as
He is pure.” 1 John 4:11: “If

God so loved us [and sent His Son], we also ought to love one another.”
Luke 1:68, 73: “He has redeemed His people … that we being delivered …
might serve Him.” 1 Thess. 4:7: “For God has not

called us for uncleanness, but in holiness.”

(Testimonies) concerning the Son: Titus 2:14: “Who gave Himself for us to
redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for Himself a people of His own
who are zealous of good deeds.” 1 Peter 2:24:

“He Himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, that we might die to sin
and live to righteousness.” 2

Cor. 5:15: “Christ died for all, that those who live might live no longer for
themselves but for Him who

for their sake died and was raised.” Eph. 2:10: “Created in Christ Jesus for
good works.” Rom. 6:4, 6:
“We are buried with Him by Baptism into death … that we might no longer
be enslaved to sin but walk

in newness of life.”

(Testimonies) concerning the Holy Spirit: Gal. 5:25: “If we live by the
Spirit, let us also walk by the

Spirit.” Eph. 4:30: “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God.” 1 Thess. 4:8:
“Whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives His Holy
Spirit to you.” Rom. 8:14: “All who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of
God.” Eph. 5:1: “Be imitators of God, as beloved children.” 1 John 2:6: “He

who says he abides in Christ ought to walk in the same way in which He
walked.” Col. 3:13: “Forgiving

each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.” 1 Peter
2:21: “Christ has left you an example that you should follow in His steps.”
Col. 1:10: “Lead a life worthy of the Lord.” Phil. 1:27:

“Let your manner of life be worthy of the Gospel of Christ,” to His praise
and to the glory of God. 1

Peter 4:11: “That in everything God may be glorified.” Titus 2:10: “That in
everything they may adorn

the doctrine of God our Savior.” 1 Tim. 6:1: “That the name of God and the
teaching may not be defamed.”

In the second place, some reasons which urge good works look to the
regenerate themselves, who, as

men who have been born again in Christ, should therefore be new creatures,
2 Cor. 5:17 and Rom. 6: 2,

18: “How can we who died to sin still live in it?” “Having been set free
from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness.” Eph. 5:8, 11: “Walk as
children of light … Take no part in the unfruitful works
of darkness.” Eph. 4:1: “Lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have
been called.” 1 Cor. 6:11:

“Such were you at one time, but … you were sanctified.” 1 John 3:6, 14,
10: “No one who sins has either seen Him or known Him … He who does
not love remains in death … By this it may be seen who are the children of
God and who are the children of the devil.” 1 Tim. 5:8: “If any one does not

provide for his relatives … he has disowned the faith.” 1 Tim. 1:19: “By
rejecting conscience, certain

persons have made shipwreck of their faith.”

In the third place, some reasons which urge good works have regard to the
neighbor, that he may be

assisted by our ministrations (Luke 6:32-38); “We put no obstacle in

anyone’s way (2 Cor. 6:3); that others may be invited to godliness by our
example (I Peter 3:1-2); That by well doing we may stop the

mouth of the adversaries. (1 Peter 2:12; 3:16; Titus 2:8)

5 Concerning the ultimate reasons why good works should be done, certain
things will have to be repeated later. Now only the misrepresentation of the
papalists had to be briefly refuted, as if our doctrine either forbade good
works or made them a matter of man’s will or certainly called into doubt

whether good works are to be done. I have, however, cited the chief
testimonies of Scripture to show

that we exhort the regenerate to zeal for good works from the sources and
foundations themselves, as

they are given in the Scripture, and that I might show that the doctrine of
good works is being taught

much more correctly in our churches than among the papalists, who boast
that they alone have good works. For we not only clearly teach from the
Word of God that good works are to be done, but we also
explain the true reasons why they should be done. We also teach of what
kind the good works of the regenerate ought to be, that there may be a
distinction between philosophical virtues and Pharisaical works and the new
obedience of the regenerate, and how in this infirmity good works can be
done, namely, by a person who has been reconciled by faith and regenerated
by the Holy Spirit. But this is not

the place for a complete explanation of these questions.

89 Here the 1566 edition of the Examen has conciliare. The editions of
1578, 1599, and 1609, and Preuss, following them, have conculcare. This is
the reading the context calls for, and we have followed it.

THE SECOND QUESTION

What the Good Works Are in which God Wants the Regenerate to
Practice

Obedience

1 Concerning this question the Council of Trent says, ch. 10, that through
keeping of the commandments of God and of the church the justified grow
in righteousness and are justified still more.

And in canon 20 they say that the justified man is bound to observe the
commandments of God and of

the church. A more modest man might perhaps understand by the

commandments of the church those

things which the church sets forth and prescribes through the ministry of the
Word of God from the Scripture, so that these are plainly the same as the
commands of God by reason of the authority of the

church and by reason of the ministry. But the interpreter of the council,
Andrada. does not permit this

milder interpretation, for he expressly distinguishes between the

commandments of God and the
commandments of the church. And he establishes this difference, that the
commandments of God are revealed by God Himself in His Word; but the
commandments of the church are about the things which

have no express command or testimony in the Word of God.

2 In order that the issue in this question may be correctly stated, I will
repeat what was said above under the topic concerning traditions, that when
there is debate about the things which have testimony

in the Word of God, not only those things are to be understood which are
found in just so many letters

and syllables in Scripture, but those also which are deduced by a good
conclusion from sure and clear

statements of Scripture. And if they would understand such

commandments, there would be no

controversy. For these are not any less divine commandments than those
which are expressed in so many letters and syllables in Scripture. But
Andrada quotes from Matt. 23:2-3: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on
Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you.” And from this
he argues:

If in the Old Testament not those things only were to be observed which
Moses had prescribed but those

also which the men commanded who had succeeded to the place of Moses,
such as the scribes and Pharisees, no less therefore is obedience and regard
owed to the prelates of the church in the New Testament.

3 From this argumentation the reader clearly understands to what end they
hand down the decrees concerning the commands of the church. And, that
we may arrive the sooner at the point of the question,

this declaration must be added. There are in the church certain

arrangements concerning ceremonies or
certain external observances. We have explained under the topic of
traditions what the teaching of the

Scripture concerning these is. For ceremonies which are in agreement with
the Scripture can rightly be

retained, because they still have the testimony of the Word of God; but
those which conflict with the Scripture are by a just judgment boldly
rejected and abolished.

But in addition, there are certain indifferent rites which really do not
conflict with the Scripture, yet

they have no express command or testimony in the Scripture. Concerning

these the simple and clear answer is: If they serve good order, decorum, and
edification and are set forth in such a way that they do not conflict with
Christian liberty, that is, that they are not set forth or observed from the
notion of necessity, worship, or merit, the church can decide concerning
them, as in its judgment will serve for edification for a variety of times,
customs, and peoples. This has been more fully explained above in
connection with traditions.

4 If this were what is at issue in this question, there would not be much to
argue about. But Andrada

explains the thinking of the council thus: “That the Roman pontiff has
received from Christ the entire, perfect, and full power of ruling the
universal church, so that the laws given by him are in all things to be
observed in no other way than as divine.” And he adds: “It often happens
that he who breaks such

church laws is involved in a greater crime than he who breaks the divine
laws, especially if it is done

with contempt for the prelates.” And as an example of this he with the
Jesuits adduces this, that “those
are to be held as heathen men and publicans who are not restrained by the
order of the church from taking the Eucharist under both kinds.” All these
are words of Andrada, from which the reader will see

what all can find shelter within the topic of the papalists concerning the
commandments of the church.

However, the Tridentine fathers add besides these things, ch. 10, that a man
is justified by the keeping

of the commandments of God and of the church.

According to the explanation of Andrada, therefore, the points at issue are

the following: (1) that the

laws given by the Roman pope and the prelates of the church, although they
have no commandment or

testimony of the Word of God, are nevertheless to be observed in all things

in no other way than the divine laws; (2) that it is often a greater crime to
break traditions of this kind than it is to break divine laws; (3) that the
obligation of such traditions is such and so great that those who prefer to
follow the

testamentary institution of the Son of God in taking the Eucharist in both

kinds rather than to follow the command of the prelates are to be held as
heathen men and publicans; (4) that by the keeping of such

traditions men are justified before God to life eternal.

I am not imagining these things, therefore I have copied down the precise
words both of the council

and of Andrada, who wrote at the Council of Trent.

5 What greater act of shamelessness can be thought out than to compare the
traditions of men on an
equal, yes, on the same plane with the commandments of God? And why do
I say “equal,” when in fact

they place them above, and that in such a way that they pronounce it a
greater crime to violate human

traditions than divine laws, yes, a crime worthy of the anathema, if one is
unwilling to prefer a human

prohibition to the institution of the Son of God in the matter of receiving the
Eucharist under both kinds.

Come on, scarlet beast, man of sin, and son of perdition, fulfill the measure
of what is written in 2

Thess. 2, that the godly may be able to recognize you by your colors. Exalt
yourself above all that is called God or is worshiped. Take your seat in the
temple of God, as God, show and proclaim yourself,

that you are God! Yes, tell us openly how the matter stands; Is. 14:13-15: “1
will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I
will sit on the mount of assembly … I will ascend

above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”
God grant that the other verse

may soon follow: “But you are brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the
pit.” Amen, Amen.

Long ago Pelagius was condemned because he ascribed justification to the

observance of the divine

law. Now, however, at the Council of Trent they are not afraid to pronounce
a man who has been justified gratis to be still more justified through the
observance of the commandments of God and of human traditions, so that
the merit of eternal life is divided between the observance of the
commandments of God and of human traditions. How do you think Paul
would have cried out against
this blasphemy if he had heard it? He said of the works of the divine law:
“If justification were through

the Law, then Christ died to no purpose.” “You are severed from Christ, you
who would be justified by

the Law; you have fallen away from grace.”

Augustine says of his own time in Letter No. 119: “I deplore the more that
many things which are most wholesomely prescribed in the divine books
are little cared for, and all things are so full of so many man-made
commandments, that he is reproached more severely who during the eight
days [i. e.,

after Baptism] touches the earth with naked foot than he who buries his
mind in drunkenness.” And he

adds: “That the condition of the Jews is more tolerable; although they did
not know the time of freedom,

they were yet subject to burdens of the Law, not to commandments of

men.” But what do you think that

most excellent man would say, if he were to read those monstrous

blasphemies which they were not

afraid to decree in the council concerning the placing of human traditions

on a level with, yes, preferring them to the divine commands and
concerning the justification of man through the observance

of human traditions? There should certainly have been in men in the church
enough light and zeal that

such portentiloquia (“extravagant speaking”), as Irenaeus calls it, would not

even have got a hearing.
But because the last times are upon us, in which, according to the
prophecies of Christ and of the apostles, the power of error rules, such
things are not only written with impunity but are published in

the Synod of Trent as if they were oracles of the Holy Spirit.

6 However, we shall briefly quote the sure, clear, and immovable

testimonies of Scripture that those are the works in which God wants the
regenerate to exercise obedience which He Himself has

prescribed and commanded in His Word. For if the matter is judged

according to the testimonies of Scripture, it is very clear. For God has both
affirmatively and negatively revealed His position on this

question in the Scripture, because there have at all times been those who by
a show of piety and under

the pretext of a good intention have departed from the norm of good works
set before us in the Word of

God, intending to do either more or greater works than those which God
Himself has prescribed to us.

For there is a certain Pharisaical pride of the human mind which does not
gladly suffer itself to be bound and obligated to the prescription of the
divine Word but judges self-elected worship, invented either by themselves
or by others, to be superior. This was the origin of the sacred groves and of
the high places and of many such acts of worship among the people of the
Old Testament, which had not

been divinely commanded, in which the pretext of a good intention so

reigned that it stoned and killed

the prophets who reproved such self-elected forms of worship. But these are
truly the gibes of the devil,

who bitterly mocks the utterly miserable infirmity of our corrupt nature.
7 For because, as a result of the flesh which adheres to them in this life, not
even the regenerate are able to satisfy the law of God with a perfect
obedience, the devil instills such opinions as this, that human nature can
perform more and greater things than God has commanded. It is as if a
servant would

neglect and postpone the commandments of his master and would occupy
himself with other labors, chosen and undertaken by him according to his
own will. But God says thus in the Scripture, Deut.

12:8, 32: “Let not everyone do what seems right in his own eyes, but
whatever I command, that you shall observe to do it for the Lord. You shall
neither add anything to it nor take anything away from it.”

Num. 15:39-40: “Do not follow after your own heart and your own eyes,
which you are inclined to go

after wantonly. So you shall remember and do all My commandments and

be holy to your God.”

Ezek. 20:18-19: “Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers. … I the Lord
am your God; walk in My

statutes.” The added reason should be noted why one is not to walk in the
statutes of the fathers but in

the commandments of God, “because,” He says, “I am the Lord your God.”

By this preface in the Decalog He claims for Himself the authority to
command, and He binds us to obedience to His Word.

We ought to walk in the commandments of Him who is the Lord our God.
Whoever gives this title either by words or by deed to the Roman pontiff
and to the prelates of the church is manifestly a blasphemer.

Deut. 5:32-33: “You shall be careful to do as the Lord your God has
commanded you; you shall not
turn aside to the right hand or to the left. You shall walk in all the way
which the Lord your God has

commanded you.”

Is. 1:12: “Who requires of you this trampling of My courts?” Matt. 15:9
from Is. 29:13: “In vain do

they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.” In Col. 2:23

, “self-chosen

acts of worship,” are expressly condemned. In Eph. 2:10 Paul says that God
has prepared beforehand the works in which those should walk who have
been created in Christ Jesus for good works.

In Rom. 12:2, when he is about to teach the doctrine of good works, he

says: “That you may prove

what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” The will
of God must, however, be

determined and learned from His words. Thus in Rom. 13:8-10, when he
wants to show how and

whence that will of God is to be proved, he mentions the Law and recites,
word for word, the precepts of the Decalog. In Gal. 5:14, he says that love,
which is the root and sum total of good works, is nothing else than the
fulfillment of the Law and the sum total of the commandment” (cf. 1 Tim.
1:5). 2 Tim.

3:16-17: “All Scripture is … profitable … that the man of God may be

complete, equipped for every good work.”

8 God therefore sets forth His Word as the norm of good works, and that in
such a way that He rejects self-chosen acts of worship and commandments
which are taught because men imagine that they
constitute worship. And He asserts that His Word is the most complete
norm, for He says: “You shall

not add to it or take from it” (Deut. 12:32). “You shall not turn aside to the
right hand or to the left (Deut. 5:32; Joshua 1:7). Therefore when anything
is added by men to the divine rule of good works,

which God has Himself declared to be most complete, a wrong is done to it.
And the norm of good works ought to be set forth in the church from the
Word of God, in addition to other reasons, also for

this one, that it may remind us of our imperfection in the exercise and
course of good works. For in human traditions and self-chosen acts of
worship the human mind can easily deceive itself with the idea

of perfection, yes, of supererogation, which is destructive to the doctrine of

justification.

9 These testimonies of Scripture clearly teach what God’s opinion is with

respect to the question which is before us. But I beg the reader to compare
what the prophets argue against self-chosen worship

and what Christ argues against the tradition of the elders with the above-
quoted axioms of Andrada, which he broadcast into the Christian world
while the Council of Trent was in session, and he will see

what kind of spirit presided at the Council of Trent.

10 To forestall needless argument I will add this, that those very brief lines
in which the Decalog is composed are not to be understood sophistically but
as this norm of good works is taught and explained

by the prophets, by Christ, and by the apostles in the Scriptures. Then we

will at the same time understand what all is comprehended and contained in
that divine rule, as, for instance, when Paul preached free of charge to the
Corinthians, lest he put an obstacle in the way of the Gospel. (1 Cor. 9:3-12)
11 Now let us hear further what arguments Andrada opposes to these
testimonies of Scripture as he

sets out to defend the commandments of the prelates of the church in the
manner already indicated. His

first argument is this: “‘He who hears you, hears Me; he who rejects you,
rejects Me’ (Luke 10:16).

Therefore it is a command of Christ that we hear the prelates of the church

in no other way than Himself; that we obey them in all things; that we
observe their precepts in no other way than as divine,

and that we esteem them as being divine commands rather than human.” So
says Andrada.

I reply: This saying of Christ contains the sweet teaching and consolation
that when the ministers of

the Word prove from the Word of God what they teach, they are to be heard
in no other way than as if

the voice of God were speaking to us from heaven. For God is present with
the ministry and speaks to

us through that medium, and it is efficacious, as the Baptist says: “I am the

voice of one calling.” For it is God who calls through the Baptist. In 2 Cor.
13:3 Paul says: “You desire proof that Christ is speaking

in me.” Thus in 2 Cor. 5:20 he says: “God makes His appeal through us.”
But how? By “entrusting to us

the message of reconciliation.” So we read in Is. 59:21: “My Spirit which is

upon you and My words

which I have put in your mouth, etc.” This teaching wins true reverence for
the ministry and inclines the
minds to obedience, according to the saying, Heb. 13:17: “Obey your
leaders and submit to them.”

When the ministers bring and set forth the Word of God, the hearers accept
it not as the word of men but

as it is indeed, the Word of God, as Paul says in 1 Thess. 2:13. And it is

most comforting that we can

truly conclude that when we hear the Word of God out of the mouth of the
minister, the Son of God Himself is with us, speaks to us, and is efficacious
through that Word. For upon this depends what Christ declares: “If you
forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven,” “whatever you loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven.” But this dignity, reverence, obedience, and
efficacy of the ministry depends on this,

that it brings and sets forth the Word of God.

This Andrada does not want, but he says that Christ gave to the prelates of
the church power, not limited but, as it were, infinite, that no matter what
they propose, decree, and prescribe, regardless whether they have a
command or testimony of the Word of God in the Scripture or do not have
it, the

church is nevertheless bound to obedience, that she should in all things

obey her prelates and should observe their precepts in no other way than as
divine, so that under no circumstances must there be any

dispute about their precepts, whether they are in agreement with the Word
of God. And he applies to this the saying from Jerome: “Hear, Israel, and be
silent.” But this is by no means the meaning of Christ’s words. For when He
sent the apostles into their ministry in Matt. 10 and the seventy90 in Luke
10, He, indeed, adds this privilege to their ministry: “He who hears you,
hears Me.” But does this mean:

Whatever you teach men, even though you have no command or testimony
from My Word for it, will
nevertheless have to be observed with the same reverence and devotion as if
it were a divine command?

Surely not! But He prescribes certain commands for the ministry of the
apostles and of the seventy in

Matt. 10 and Luke 10, by which, as by certain limits and, as it were,

railings, he incloses and circumscribes their ministry. And of that
administration of the ministry, circumscribed by certain commands of
Christ, He says: “He who hears you hears Me.” Thus He says, Matt. 28:20:
“I am with

you always, to the close of the age,” but He adds: “Teach them to observe
all that I have commanded

you.” Then it is correct to say: “He who hears you hears Me.” In John
20:21, Christ says, “As the Father

has sent Me, even so I send you.” Of His own mission He says, John 14:31:
“I do as the Father has commanded Me.” But are those who went out from
the apostles to be obeyed in all things, and are their

precepts to be observed in no other way than as divine when they do not

bring the apostolic doctrine?

“By no means,” says John: “do not receive them into the house or give them
any greeting.” Likewise:

“Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of
God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.” Thus Paul
teaches that the apostles themselves had been bound to a certain form of
doctrine, delivered and accepted from Christ, so that he pronounces the
anathema if even an angel from heaven were to say anything else (Gal. 1:8-
9). It is therefore wrong when Andrada

says that the church has divine authority to bring in laws which have no
command or testimony in the
Scripture. However, when they have the testimony of the Word of God, then
there is no doubt that they

are divine.

His second argument he constructs from the passage Acts 15:23-29. Christ
had not commanded that

the converted from among the Gentiles should abstain from blood, from
things strangled, etc.; rather, from Paul we learn that at that time also all the
rites of the old covenant had been abrogated and declared obsolete. And yet
the apostles lay upon these Gentiles a law concerning these things and
confidently assert that this had seemed good not only to them but also to the
Holy Spirit. Therefore, the

church has divine authority to bring in laws also concerning things which
either were not taught by Christ or had even been abrogated by Him.

A powerful argument, indeed, which can give to the prelates of the church
infinite license not only to

institute anything they please without the Word of God but also to permit
things which Christ has forbidden or to forbid things which He Himself
instituted. What, then, has become of that

superscription: “I am the Lord, your God; walk in My commandments”?

Has He now given that glory

to another? Had His commandments been forgotten within 15 years? Matt.

28:20: “Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you,” and that
in Acts 1:8 they were made witnesses of the doctrine

of Christ, not legislators of a new doctrine? If anyone had wanted to ascribe

this to the apostles while

they were still living in the flesh, that they had divine authority to bring in
laws concerning which they had no command or testimony in the divine
Word, yes, that they could restore the things which Christ
had abrogated or abrogate what He had instituted, they would no doubt
have shown in a resounding voice and with rent garments that they did not
acknowledge or approve that.

For that flattering proclamation would truly have been an accusation of

faithlessness, that they were not faithfully performing their ambassadorship
(2 Cor. 5:19-20) but were exceeding the powers

entrusted to them, which is also in common law something dishonorable.

However, to the argument itself I answer as follows: The apostles say “It
seemed good to the Holy

Ghost and to us” also for this reason, that no one should think that they
were making this decree to show

their authority, without a divine command and testimony. But how they
were sure that it seemed good

thus to the Holy Ghost is clear from the speech of Peter and of James,
where certainly the calling of the

Gentiles and the article of gratuitous justification, that the burden of the
Law should not be laid on the consciences, are proved both from the
Scripture and by the miracles of the Holy Spirit. And these are

the chief points of the apostolic decree. But about the remaining four points
— offerings to idols, blood, things strangled, and fornication — the answer
is also plain. For fornication, which was held to be an

indifferent thing among the Gentiles, is certainly prohibited by the divine

Word, and with what arguments the apostles prohibited it to the Gentiles is
clear from 1 Cor. 6:15-20, where Paul certainly

does not say that he prohibits it on his own authority but uses the weightiest
arguments. The reason for

the other three appears more obscure, but the principles are clear. For those
legal rites were obsolete; not that their observance had been simply
forbidden and prohibited, but their observance was now no longer

necessary in the same manner as it had been under the Law but had been
made free. However, the Word

of God teaches that this liberty in indifferent things, or adiaphora, should

not be used when love shows

that the weak in faith are offended and when foregoing the use of that
liberty can, without harm to faith, invite the weak to faith. Because that was
how matters stood at that time with those who were weak among the Jews,
the apostles made this decree from this principle of the Word of God, that
those who

had been converted from among the Gentiles should, for the time being, not
use their liberty in those things which had already become indifferent, lest
they give offense to the weaker among the Jews, but

that thus through their love they should invite them to faith in Christ.

Therefore the apostles did not make that decree without a basis and
testimony in the Word of God,

from powers residing in themselves, nor did they impose it upon the
Gentiles by a law which they themselves had made; a thing which Christ
had prohibited; but they took that decree from the rule of the

Word of God concerning the use of liberty in indifferent things. But that
they call these points necessary does not mean that the apostles made those
things which Christ had made free necessary for the Gentiles in the way
they had been under the Law. For this Paul sharply condemns in Gal. 2:14-
18 and

Col. 2:16-23. However, because love at that time demanded that those who
had been converted from among the Gentiles should not use this their
liberty for the sake of the edification of the neighbor among the Jews but
should abstain from it, to this extent and in this way the apostles say that
these things, which are in themselves free, are necessary to be done, not per
se, not generally, nor always, but by reason of the edification of the weaker
brethren. For Paul says in 1 Cor. 10:25: “Eat whatever is sold in

the meat market without raising any questions on the ground of

conscience.” But in the epistles to the

Galatians and to the Colossians Paul teaches that, because of those who are
not weak but stubborn and

urge the opinion that those ceremonies are necessary for salvation as a
matter of law, one should not yield but use one’s liberty as a matter of
necessity. The difference, however, does not arise from a certain fullness of
power by which they are able, without any basis and testimony in the Word
of God,

arbitrarily either to institute or also to abrogate anything they please, but it

has sure foundations and firm testimonies in the Word of God. Such a
power and authority of the ministry we gladly

acknowledge and proclaim.

Therefore the Spirit of God, who is present to the ministry in the church,
does not give unlimited license to establish what one pleases, but He
governs the church according to the revealed Word. For Christ also said to
the apostles, John 14:26: “The Holy Spirit … will bring to your
remembrance all that

I have said to you.” He does not say (as the papalists have corrupted the
text): “Whatever I shall say to

you.” And yet there is a difference. For the apostles have the divine
testimonies of miracles, and of the Holy Ghost, that they may not err in
doctrine. Such testimonies other prelates of the church do not have,

but they are bound to the Word of the heavenly doctrine, which is heard in
the Scripture. But the papalist prelates bear such subjection very
unwillingly, for they are so far removed even from the worldly modesty
which is celebrated in that most praiseworthy saying: “It is a word worthy
of the majesty of the emperor, to confess that he is the first to be subject to
the laws.”

In the third place, hear what Andrada learned at the Council of Trent to
reply to that very true objection, that all things which are set forth by the
ministers of the church should be weighed on the balance of the Holy
Scriptures. He says: “Christ says: On the seat of Moses sit the scribes and
the Pharisees; so practice and observe whatever they tell you.” These words
he interprets as follows:

“Christ decrees that not those things only are to be observed which Moses
commanded, but also the things which those would command who would
succeed to the place of Moses, namely, the scribes and

Pharisees.” And on this basis he argues from the lesser to the greater about
respect for the prelates of the church in the New Testament. I do not quote
this argument as though it required any painstaking explanation but in order
that the reader may see what kind of absolute power the papalists seek in
the

church, and what conscientious handlers and interpreters of the Scripture

they are. I will not speak at length about the explanation of the ancients,
who interpret that the scribes sit on the seat of Moses when they set forth
not their own traditions but the doctrine delivered by God through Moses
and that then the

ministry of the Word should not be despised or rejected on account of the

imperfections of the persons.

Surely, the evidence of the matter itself refutes the shameless and
mercenary interpretation of Andrada.

For in that very same chapter Christ says: “Woe to you, scribes and
Pharisees … because you shut the

kingdom of heaven against men … Woe to you, blind guides who say, etc.”
Luke 11:52: “Woe to you
lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter
yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.” Matt. 16:11:
“Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and

Sadducees.” This the Evangelist afterwards expressly interprets of the

doctrine of the scribes and the Pharisees. In Matt. 15:14, where the question
about the traditions of the Pharisees had been raised, Christ clearly says:
“Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind
man, both

will fall into a pit.” And what need is there for many words? For it is very
clear in the entire Gospel history that Christ fought with the Pharisees
because they burdened the consciences of men with the traditions of the
elders without the Word of God, outside of and beyond the Word of God.
From these

Christ recalls men to the Word of God, for He says: “In vain do they
worship Me, teaching as doctrine

the precepts of men.” And because these things arc very clear, let the reader
consider what kind of council that is, in which Andrada is not afraid so
shamelessly to invent a false interpretation of the Words of Christ, Matt.
23:2-3, in order to support the tyranny of the Roman popes, an
interpretation which can with one stroke absolve the Pharisees but condemn
Christ and all the apostles. If the interpretation of Andrada is true, why did
they examine all the sayings and commands of the popes according to the
scale of the Word of God? Why did they not rather simply observe what
they were commanded by the ordinaries? This certainly is a worthy emblem
for a papalist synod.

(Andrada’s fourth argument is:) The Word of God has not decreed anything
about fasting on the Sabbath, but Ignatius writes that the apostles made a
decree that those are murderers of Christ who fast

on the Sabbath. Therefore the prelates of the church have divine authority to
bring in laws which have

no command or testimony in the Word of God.

I reply: This argument shows on what kind of foundation the papal decrees
rest. For above, under the

topic “Concerning Traditions,” we have clearly shown that what is here

quoted from Ignatius is spurious

and that this decree is falsely attributed to the apostles, even with this
addition. For Augustine in Letter No. 86, argues specifically that to fast or
not to fast on the Sabbath is not an apostolic tradition, as some had begun to
argue at that time. And Socrates, Bk. 5, ch. 22, shows in general that the
apostles had not

laid down any laws about fasting. Therefore that basis is spurious and false.
This can indeed happen, that for the sake of the weak, who either were
converted or were to be converted from among the Jews,

some such thing had been instituted and observed according to the rule of
love in Christian liberty, as

was said about the decree of the apostles, Acts 15:28-29. But Paul carefully
distinguishes the things about which they had an express command of God
from those regarding which he himself gave

direction through the apostolic Spirit. For to the latter he adds: “Not to lay
any restraint upon you” (1

Cor. 7:35). Therefore that addition is not of the apostolic Spirit, that those
are murderers of Christ who fast on the Sabbath.

(Andrada’s fifth argument is:) In the most ancient and most approved
councils many constitutions were made, which have been religiously
observed by pious emperors and by the rest of the church.

Therefore the church has divine authority to bring in laws, etc. I reply: In
what measure and to what end

the church can decree something in indifferent matters for edification has
been explained above. And in
this way and to this end we do not condemn useful and godly arrangements,
so long as they do not become snares of consciences and infringe on
Christian liberty. But we by no means grant what Andrada argues, that from
this there is established the tyranny of the Roman pope, all kinds of ungodly

decrees, superstitious opinions, and snares for consciences. For we must

stand in that liberty with which

the Son of God has made us free, lest we be subjected to the yoke of
slavery. (Gal. 5:1; Col. 2:16-23)

These are the arguments of Andrada. But the rest, about the works which
we do not owe and the works of supererogation, belongs to the topic of
repentance.

90 The editions consulted have et 17 at this point, but the et septuaginta in

the same context eight lines later seems to indicate that the seventy
disciples of Luke 10 are meant here too.

THE THIRD QUESTION

Whether the Good Works of the Regenerate in This Life Are So Perfect
that They

Fully, Abundantly, and Perfectly Satisfy the Divine Law

1 The true explanation of this question has at all times been troubled and
distorted by various corruptions, because not only the witness of Scripture
but also the judgment of reason was consulted.

The axiom of reason is, as Plutarch says in Solon: “Laws must be made
according to what is possible.”

The law must have this characteristic, that it can be kept by those for whom
it is given. Therefore, there inheres in the deplorable corruption of our poor
nature the Pharisaic presumption of perfection, yes, of

supererogation. Therefore the people say at the giving of the Law: “All that
the Lord has spoken we will
do” (Ex. 19:8; Deut. 5:27). To reject this conviction, God promulgated the
Law with such a terrible display that they said, terror-stricken: “Let us not
hear the voice of God any longer, lest we die.” And

when they pleaded that Moses should be their mediator, even he said: “I
tremble with fear” (Heb.

12:21). God repeated the promise concerning the Messiah and concerning
the doctrine of the Gospel (Deut. 18:15; Acts 3:22-23). And Deut. 5:28-29:
He says: “They have rightly said all that they have spoken. Oh, that they
had such a mind as this always, to fear Me and to keep all My
commandments.”

Christ also had much trouble with the Pharisees about that conviction of
perfection, Matt. 19:20 and Luke 10:25-37: “All these I have observed;
what do I still lack?” In Luke 18:11-12 the Pharisee boasts

before God that he has done far more than is demanded even in the
commandments of God. And in our

own time this is one of the chief controversies which is fought with great
contention by the papalists,

that the perfect keeping of the Law is both so possible and so easy that the
regenerate can in this life by their obedience not only fulfill the divine law
fully and perfectly but over and above the Law of God

can do many works which they do not owe.

2 This controversy is of very great importance. For in the first place the
teaching of Scripture concerning the knowledge and confession of the sins
which in this life inhere and remain also in the saints cannot be rightly
taught, understood, or used, unless this question is correctly explained. In
the second place the purity of the article of justification cannot be retained
unless this question is correctly explained from the teaching of Scripture,
namely, that it is shown where the regenerate ought to seek the
perfect fulfillment of the Law which before the judgment of God they can
bring up against the accusation of the Law and the wrath of God against
sins in order that they may be pronounced righteous

for salvation and eternal life. The regenerate indeed have through the Spirit
of renewal a beginning of

obedience to the Law; but because the minutest point of the divine law
cannot fall but must be perfectly

fulfilled, the regenerate cannot through this beginning of obedience, which

is not perfect, stand in the

judgment of God, in order that they may be justified on account of it for

salvation and eternal life.

Therefore they by faith lay hold of Christ, who is the fulfillment of the Law
for righteousness to everyone who believes (Rom. 10:4). But the conviction
which ascribes perfection to the good works of

the regenerate in this life makes Christ superfluous after the first
reconciliation, so that He is no longer our righteousness (Jcr. 23:6), but it
transfers justification from Christ to our works.

Third, the doctrine of good works cannot be taught rightly without a true
explanation of this question.

For without this it is not possible to maintain a true and necessary humility
of mind in the exercise and

course of good works, but Pharisaic boasting, which Paul wants to have
excluded (Rom. 3:27; 1 Cor.

1:28-29), follows if men are taught that the regenerate satisfy the divine law
perfectly through their

works in this life. The explanation of this question also shows, since the
Scripture clearly affirms that the good works of the believers please God,
how and why they please Him, namely, not because they
satisfy the Law perfectly in this life but because all commands are reckoned
as having been done when

whatever is not done is pardoned for Christ’s sake, as Augustine says,

Retractationes, Bk. 1, ch. 29. Not without good reason do the papalists fight
so determinedly about this question. For they see that the chief power of
their kingdom consists in this, that the regenerate can and must set up their
good works

against the judgment and wrath of God in order that they may on their
account be judged worthy of eternal life; yes, that they can do many more
works than are required, which can then be applied to others through
papalist indulgences.

3 But misrepresentations must be removed in order that the point at issue in

the controversy may be rightly established. For we do not teach that the
fulfillment of the Law is so impossible that those who

have been born again through the Spirit of renewal neither can nor should in
this life begin to obey the

Law. Neither do we argue chiefly this against the papalists, that

unregenerate men cannot perfectly satisfy the Law of God through the
natural powers of free will. For we say that although unregenerate

men can in some measure observe outward discipline, this nevertheless

remains true, that spiritual obedience to the Law cannot even be begun
without the Holy Spirit. Therefore the question is about the

works of the regenerate, of what kind they are in this life, namely, whether
they satisfy the divine law so fully and abundantly through perfect
fulfillment that the divine law has nothing which it can censure and
condemn in these good works of the regenerate in this life, if God should
want to enter into judgment with them without pardon and forgiveness.

4 We must now briefly show the reader the deceitful cunning with which
the 11 th chapter of the Synod of Trent has been framed. For they studiously
avoided the word “perfection.” They do not expressly say what they
nevertheless think and want, that perfect keeping of the divine law by
means of

the works of the regenerate is both possible and easy in this life; but they
say in general that the keeping of the commandments of God is not
impossible for justified man when God helps him. If they would

understand this of the keeping of the commandments of God which is

begun in the regenerate through

the Spirit of renewal in this life, which must also thereafter grow, there
would be no controversy. For the justified are renewed by the Spirit to this
end, that they may be able to begin the new obedience according to the
commandments of God. So they also adduce statements of the Scripture
which remind

us that the justified must begin the new obedience and which teach that the
regenerate have such an incipient obedience. However, these things are
clearly not in controversy among us, as we have shown

under the first question. They also speak without distinction about the good
works of the justified, of what kind they are in themselves when they are
examined according to the norm of the divine law, and

how they are regarded by God when for Christ’s sake their blemishes and
defects are not imputed. But

what they seek with these confused generalities they finally indicate quite
clearly, namely, that the good works of the justified are in this life so perfect
that nothing that has need of pardon clings to them. This they do not set
forth at once in the beginning of the 11th chapter, but they play with general
statements

and arguments, that in this way they may fool the inexperienced and
incautious reader, that he may be

caught in the net and held fast before he is aware of it.

5 With the same cunning they play with the word “impossibility.” For they
remember that the Pelagians at one time caused trouble for Augustine with
the sophistical argument that according to the

absolute power of God it is not impossible that by the grace of God some
regenerate person could be

without sin in this life. Augustine replies in De peccatorum meritis, Bk. 2,

ch. 6: “Whether a thing is possible is one question; whether it is real is
another question.” He adds in ch. 7: “If it be asked whether there is anyone
in this life without sin, I do not believe there is. For 1 believe the Scriptures
more, where the saints say: ‘If we say we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us.’” Therefore

Augustine says in the same place, ch. 6, and in De natura et gratia, ch. 43,
that God has not prescribed

impossible things to man. This he explains in a twofold way, first in Ad

Bonifacium, Bk. 3, ch. 7: “The grace of God in this life bestows desire to
keep the commandments, and the same grace forgives if something also in
the commandments is not fully kept.” Also, he says in Retractationes, Bk.
1, ch. 19:

“All commandments of God are counted as having been kept when

whatever is not done is forgiven.”

Secondly, in the book De perfectione justitiae he says that that is not the
question, whether a man can be wholly free from all guilt; the question is
when and through whom this is, namely, neither in this life,

nor by the powers of nature, but solely through the powers of divine grace.”
In Ad Valerium, Bk. 1, ch.

29, he says: “To this end the Law says, ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ that we
might seek the remedy of grace

and might know in that precept both whither we must in this mortal life
attempt to make progress and
how it is possible for us to arrive in that most blessed immortality. For if it
were never to be fulfilled, it would never have been commanded.”

6 It was on account of the sophistical arguments of the Pelagians that

Augustine refrained from using the word “impossibility.” But afterward, in
the spurious booklet issued under the name of Jerome, the

anathema was added, and that is quoted by the men of Trent. But the
Scripture is not afraid to say of the

observance of the Law that it is a yoke which neither the apostles nor the
believers in the primitive church nor the fathers were able to bear (Acts
15:10), which is certainly spoken of the justified and regenerate. Very
beautiful is also the statement of Bernard in Sermon 50, In Cantica: “If it
pleases you that a commandment should have been given concerning
ardent-love, I do not contend about this; if only you will also agree with me
that it can or could not at all be fulfilled by any human being in this

life. For who may dare to arrogate to himself what Paul himself confesses
he has not attained? It has not

escaped the Master that the weight of the precept exceeds the strength of
men; but He judged it useful to

remind them of their insufficiency by this very thing and that they might
truly know for which goal of

righteousness they ought to strive with all their might. Therefore by

commanding impossible things He

made men not sinful but humble, that every mouth may be stopped and that
all the world may be subject

to God. To be sure, when we receive the commandment and feel our fault,
we will cry to heaven, and

God will have mercy on us, and we shall know in that day that He has saved
us not by works which we
have done but according to His mercy.”

7 From this reminder the reader understands to what purpose the men of
Trent raised the dispute about the words “possibility” and “impossibility,”
namely, that they may in this way lead the people away from the real point
of the question. Now that we have put aside the debate about terminology,
let

the question about the matters themselves be established, namely, whether

the good works of the regenerate in this life satisfy the divine law by perfect
fulfillment, as we have above established the issue of the question.

8 But the explanation will be easier and plainer. For Andrada concedes and
approves four axioms which are the firm foundations in this question.

First, that the newness, or wholeness, which has been begun in the
regenerate through the Holy Spirit

is not perfect and complete in this life. For there is and remains in the
regenerate in this life the new and the old man, the flesh and the spirit, the
law of the mind and the law of sin. And the inner man is renewed from day
to day, as Augustine proves at length in De peccatorum meritis, Bk. 2, and
in In Evangelium Johannis tractatus, 41: “The Law is spiritual” (Rom.
7:14). As long therefore as the flesh wars against the Spirit the Law cannot
be perfectly fulfilled. So Augustine teaches in De perfectione justitiae that
complete soundness and perfect love, which is the fulfillment of the Law,
follow each other.

Second, that the commandment of love that has to do with loving God with
all our heart, with all our

soul, with all our mind, and with all our powers; likewise the last
commandment, “You shall not covet,”

cannot be fulfilled perfectly by anyone in this life as long as there is

something of fleshly lust which must be bridled through constraint and as
long as this corruptible has not put on incorruption, as
Augustine clearly shows on the basis of Scripture in many places in De
perfectione justitiae; De spiritu et littera, ch. 36; Ad Bonifacium, Bk. 3, ch.
7; Ad Asellicum, 200.

Third, that on account of the flesh in which there dwells not good but evil,
because to him who wants

to do good, evil is present; and on account of the law of sin in the members
of the regenerate, which

opposes the law of the mind; no one among the regenerate is without sin in
this life (Rom. 7; 1 John 1:8,

10; Ps. 32 and 130:3; Prov. 20:9), as Augustine argues at length in De

peccatorum mentis, Bk. 2; De perfectione justitiae. And in De natura et
gratia, ch. 6, he says very beautifully: “If it were possible to assemble all
the saints, male and female, while they lived here, and to ask them whether
they were without sin, no matter how great they had been through the
excellency of their holiness, if they could be

asked this, they would say with one voice: ‘If we say that we have no sin,
we deceive ourselves and the

truth is not in us.’” But sin, according to Ambrose, is the transgression of

the divine law. Therefore the Law cannot be fulfilled perfectly in this life by
the regenerate, who are not able to be without sin.

Fourth, Paul expressly says, Rom. 7:18: “I can will what is right, but I
cannot do it”; Phil. 3:12: “Not

that I have already obtained this or am already perfect.”

9 These proofs, which are very firm and clear, Andrada concedes and fully
approves. And yet, at the same time, he defends the papalist axiom that the
divine law can be kept and observed fully and perfectly by the regenerate in
this life. He confesses that these things appear to be contradictory and
conflicting to a very high degree. Nevertheless, he promises that he will
demonstrate that both are completely true. For so completely is he
persuaded either of his learning or of his eloquence. The other

papalist writers have attempted to gnaw away at these proofs in various

ways. But Andrada has so much

faith in his pompous oratory that he hopes that he will be able to deceive
even by saying what is true,

and by means of what is true to prove and defend what is false. Yet he
produces nothing which has not

already been worn out by overuse in the writings of other Roman writers,
except that he has perhaps thought of the proverb: “There is trash even in a
river of gold.”

10 Therefore he argues that men are not bound by that part of the Law
which cannot be fulfilled perfectly in this life, while we are in the flesh; that
God prescribed those things only which we are able to perform, assisted by
divine powers according to the condition of this life, but that other things in
the Law arc not binding on men in this life but pertain only to the future
immortal life. Therefore the Children of Israel, and Moses along with them,
were silly when they cried out in terror: “If we hear the

voice of the Lord our God anymore, we shall die.” For, according to
Andrada’s opinion, they feared without cause that they were obligated by
those commandments of the Law which they could not keep

in this life. Nor should God at that time, when the people were in
consternation, have promised the Messiah (Deut. 18), that He might redeem
those who were under the Law (Gal. 4); but He should rather

have informed them: “There is nothing for you to be afraid of, for I was
only playing with you in that

terrible promulgation of the Law. For those things which you cannot fulfill
according to the condition of
this life do not concern you.” Therefore the outcry of Paul will be not
apostolic but womanish, silly, and ridiculous, who in the course of the new
obedience had progressed to the point where he could say, 1

Cor. 4:4: “I am not aware of anything against myself,” and yet in Rom. 7:7-
24, weaves a long and mournful complaint that he is not able to fulfill the
Law with that perfection which it demands.

However, it is not to the glorified saints in the next life but to the people in
this life that Moses sets forth this sentence of the Law: “Cursed be he who
does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.”

But among all the things which are written in the book of the Law there is
that chief law: “You shall

love the Lord your God with all your heart.” Likewise the command: “You
shall not covet.” And Paul is

of the opinion that this statement of Moses is meant for men in this life so
completely that on this basis he declares that all who rely on works of the
Law are under a curse, because also those who do the Law

nevertheless do not continue in all the things which are written in the books
of the Law (Gal. 5). And

for this reason also in Rom. 4, where he speaks of Abraham, he declares

that the inheritance of eternal

life is not through the Law. This argumentation of Paul would indeed be
silly, ridiculous, and false, if Andrada’s opinion and that of the papalists
were true.

11 False would be also the argumentation of Peter, Acts 15:10-11: “Because

neither our fathers nor

we have been able to bear this yoke, therefore we believe that we are saved
through the grace of Christ.”
Now Andrada excepts the things which we cannot bear in the Law and says
that they do not concern us.

Paul (Rom. 8), when he had complained that he could not fulfill the Law in
this flesh by a perfect obedience, at once adds this consolation: “What the
Law … could not do, God has done, sending His

own Son … who was made a sacrifice for us, etc.” But the opinion of
Andrada means that there is no

need either for such a remedy or for consolation, because God has
prescribed those things only which,

assisted by divine powers, we can perform according to the condition of this

life, but that the other things do not concern us. But Christ, in Matt. 5:17-
20, sharply reproves a clearly similar idea of the Pharisees concerning the
greatest and smallest commandments of God. Andrada, indeed, plays in

various ways in his explanation of the smallest commandments. But the

things which are adduced by Christ by way of examples about the
interpretation of a number of commandments, Matt. 5:21-48, manifestly
show what the Pharisees understood by the smallest commandments: not to
be angry with a

brother, not to say Raca or “You fool,” to look on a woman to lust after her,
to love one’s enemies, “be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is
perfect,” etc. And when He had said: “Not an iota, not a dot,

will pass from the Law until all is accomplished,” He adds: “Whoever then
relaxes one of the least of

these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least in the

kingdom of heaven.” The

explanation is therefore clear, of which commandments Christ is speaking,

namely, of those which the
Cabala of the Pharisees calls the least and taught that they should be relaxed
without harm to righteousness, if only the other things in the Law were
observed. But Christ declares: “Unless reconciliation with God and
remission is made in this life, you will be cast into prison. Truly, I say to

you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.” Therefore that
opinion of the papalists conflicts with the entire Scripture.

12 But Andrada weaves together certain arguments from the decrees of the
Council of Trent by means of which he attempts to establish that opinion.
He says that it is insulting to God, the Lawgiver

Himself, to assert that He has commanded something which in this life and
in this corruption of nature

no one is able to fulfill perfectly. As if indeed on account of the corruption

of our nature the rule of the Law, which is the perpetual and immutable
norm of righteousness in God, would have to be changed

and altered, although not even one iota of the Law can pass away so that it
is not fulfilled perfectly.

Therefore God sent His Son “born under the Law to redeem those who were
under the Law.” It is evident that the Law does not admit that perversion of
the papalists that it demands only what we can

perform in this life. But (the argument goes) John says that the children of
God have love to God in this

life, and to love God, according to the same apostle, is to keep the
commandments of God. I reply: The

question is not whether the regenerate have love and begin to keep the Law,
for this we grant and teach;

but the question is whether the love of the regenerate in this life is whole,
perfect, and absolute; likewise, whether they satisfy the Law by means of
perfect obedience.
13 However, this argument is somewhat more plausible, that John says:
“His commandments are not

burdensome,” and that Christ declares that His burden is light; likewise
what Augustine says, Ad Bonifacium, Bk. 3, ch. 7, that “the obedience of
the regenerate can be called perfect because he is still a pilgrim,” and in the
same place: “According to the capacity of a mortal man and according to
the small

measure of this life are we perfect.”

But the answer is clear: Those who have been reconciled to God through
faith for the sake of the Mediator are endowed with the Holy Spirit, who
renews them. And in this incipient newness there is in

this life some degree of good conscience for the regenerate, namely, that
they present their members to

God as instruments of righteousness and do not grant entrance cither to

errors contrary to the

foundations of the faith or to sins against the conscience. But what is

lacking from perfection, and the filth which is spattered on them from the
law of sin in their members, likewise the evil which lies close

at hand — faith prays that these be covered for the sake of Christ and not
imputed.

And in this way the commandments of God are not burdensome: first,
because they are children of

God; second, because they are led by the Spirit of God; third, because
whatever is not done is pardoned

for the sake of Christ, as Augustine says. In this way the regenerate are
called perfect in Phil. 3:15 and 1

Cor. 2:6, namely, by imputation and by way of a beginning. For in the first
place, faith in Christ accepts, has, and possesses, through imputation, the
most complete and most perfect fulfillment of the Law for

righteousness and salvation. Second, the Holy Spirit renews the hearts of
the believers through love which He kindles, in order that they may begin to
keep the Law. Third, that which is imperfect and unclean in the incipient
obedience on account of the flesh is not imputed to believers on account of
Christ but is covered.

14 The papalists corrupt these statements as if that which in the obedience

of the regenerate in this life is lacking of the perfection which the Law
requires were not a sin which could be accused by the

Law and as if the regenerate had no need to acknowledge the defect of this
imperfection, for they assert

that this does not hinder the good works of the regenerate in this life from
being set against the judgment and wrath of God for justification and
eternal life. But Paul clearly and expressly refutes this

opinion in Rom. 7:24-25 and 1 Cor. 4:4. And Augustine expressly declares
in Ad Bonifacium, Bk. 3, ch.

7, how he wants the perfection of the pilgrim understood when he says:

“The virtue which is at present

in a righteous man is to this extent called perfect, that to his perfection

belongs also a true acknowledgment and a humble confession of his own
imperfection. For then, according to this

infirmity, this little righteousness is perfect after its small measure when he
understands also what is lacking to him. Thus the apostle says that he
himself is both perfect and imperfect.” In the same place

he says: “Here the grace of God bestows zeal for observing the
commandments, and the same grace pardons whatever in these precepts is
also not wholly observed.” Thus in Retractationes, Bk. 1, ch. 19, where he
argues about the perfection of the regenerate in this life, he has this
comforting statement: “All commandments are held to have been done
when whatever is not done is pardoned.” And in the Confessions he says:
“Woe to the life of men, no matter how praiseworthy, if it is judged without
mercy.” In De civitate Dei: “The inherent righteousness of the saints in this
life is established more through the remission of sins than through the
perfection of their virtues.” In Letter No. 26, to Jerome,

he expressly says: “On account of that defect of imperfection, if we say we

have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. On account of
that defect also, no matter how much progress we

may have made, it is necessary for us to say: ‘Forgive us our debts,’

because on account of this defect

no man living will be justified before God.” Jerome says: “What do we

know, or rather, what ought we

to know, we who are perfect? We ought to confess that we are imperfect

and have not yet attained or not

yet laid hold. For this is the true wisdom of man, to know that he is
imperfect. And the perfection of all just men who are in the flesh is, so to
say, imperfect.” That the statements concerning perfection both in the
Scriptures and in the fathers are to be understood in this sense Augustine
shows in many places: Ad Bonifacium, Bk. 3, ch. 5; De gratia [ Christi, Bk.
1], chs. 48–49, etc.; De perfectione justitiae.

15 This is a very solid argument: “Sin is the transgression of the divine law.
But none of the saints is without sin in this life. Therefore no one satisfies
the Law perfectly in this life, but all are transgressors of the Law, because
they are sinners. But let us hear what and how they reply. Earlier Andrada
said that

although the just now and then offend and fall, they nevertheless bring forth
many and even most works

wholly without any defect and sin. But Paul says, Rom. 7:18-23, of one and
the same work, yes, of every single work of the regenerate in this life:
“When I want to do right, evil lies close at hand … I can will what is right,
but I cannot do it … I of myself serve the law of God with my mind but
with my flesh

I serve the law of sin.” Not that the work itself which is commanded by the
law of God is evil and sin;

but that which is less than it should be is a defect, as Augustine says. And
the corruption which clings to us as a result of the flesh is sin. Luther said
that in this way a righteous man sins in every good work.

But in this place Andrada says that this is not to be understood of mortal
sins but of venial ones. And

this, indeed, he says rightly. For mortal sins drive out faith and the Holy
Spirit, and then men cease to be righteous; but venial sins are found also in
the regenerate, yet they do not on that account cease to be

just. This also is said correctly. But the question is how and why the
regenerate are not condemned on

account of venial sins, namely, because those men are blessed whose sins
are covered and to whom their

sins are not imputed (Ps. 32:1-2; Rom. 4:7-8). For “there is no
condemnation for those who are in Christ

Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). The eleventh Triden-tine chapter might also appear to
lean toward this meaning, for

it gives the following reason why the saints do not cease to be righteous in
this life, although they fall into venial sins: “Because the righteous say
humbly and truthfully, ‘Forgive us our debts.’” But Andrada, the interpreter
of the council, does not grant this. For he contends that venial sins are in
themselves so trifling and light that they are not against the perfection of
love and that they cannot hinder perfect and complete obedience to the Law,
since, indeed, they are not worthy of the wrath of God and of condemnation
but of pardon, even if God should enter into judgment with them. As
Lindanus says: “The insignificant little faults of daily lapses are sprinklings
and little spots which in themselves do not defile and contaminate but
sprinkle the life of the Christian lightly as with fine dust, so that the works
of the regenerate in this life are nevertheless in themselves perfect and in
every respect unstained.” But that this is wrong has been demonstrated
above. For although there are differences and

degrees of sin, nevertheless, no sin is so insignificant and light that it is not

, that is, a

transgression of the divine law.

The Law pronounces a curse upon everyone who does not continue in all
the things that are written in

the book of the Law. For he who keeps the whole Law and yet offends in
some one point is guilty of all.

For not even one of the least commandments of God dare to be relaxed.

But we all fail in many ways, according to James. The Law therefore
accuses and condemns also those sins which are called venial, unless they
are covered and not imputed for the sake of Christ. In one way, therefore,
according to Augustine, that man is blessed who is without sin, which will
be in the next

life. In another way that man is blessed to whom the Lord does not impute
sin, which happens in the

believers in this life. However, there cannot be a complete and perfect

fulfillment of the Law where man

cannot be without sin. But the place to speak about mortal and venial sin
will be in the doctrine of repentance.

16 I come now at last to that notable oration (that’s what the printer calls it)
of Andrada, in which his speech turns to the church in Braunschweig and to
all Germany and in triumph as it were in the most

crowded theaters in the whole world slanders me as a forger.

But matters still stand well, for he is singing his triumphal song before the
victory. For in the first place, I am not accused of falsifying either the
Scripture or the Word of God, but the controversy is about a certain
argument of Augustine, about which the matter itself is so plain that the
exclamations of

Andrada in the style of a tragic actor clearly have no warrant, except that it
seems that he prepared for

himself such a general argument ahead of time against the Lutherans which
would fit all eventualities,

and lest this should go to waste, he had to seize whatever opportunity he

could. But the matter is as follows, and I allow every reader the freest
judgment concerning it. Augustine wrote a book, De perfectione justitiae,
against Coelestinus, in which he teaches that in this life no one attains to
such great perfection of love or of inherent righteousness that he satisfies
the first and the last commandment with

perfect and complete fulfillment, so that he is without sin. Now the question
is whether Augustine takes

away that perfection only from the unregenerate, who endeavor to fulfill the
Law without the Holy Spirit, solely with the powers of free will. I said, and
I still say, that Augustine according to the teaching of Scripture takes away
that perfection in this life also from those who have been regenerated
through

the Holy Spirit. And this is certainly both very true and very clear. For
Augustine treats this question in the same way in many other places also, as
in De peccatorum meritis, Bk. 2; Ad Bonifacium, Bk. 3; De spiritu et
littera; De natura et gratia; etc.
However, Andrada says that there are in that book of Augustine many
syllogisms of Coelestinus which speak only of the powers of free will of the
unregenerate. I know this. However, I add also this,

which he cannot deny, that Coelestinus in that place quotes against

Augustine also many statements of

Scripture about perfection which speak not about unbelievers but about
those who have been

regenerated by the Holy Spirit. And those statements Augustine explains in

such a way that he takes away also from the regenerate in this life the
perfection of love, which is without sin. But when Andrada says that the
arguments of the Pelagians excluded the grace of God entirely and ascribed
perfection to the powers of nature alone, without the Holy Spirit, he should
not think that we are so ignorant of antiquity that we do not know that and
how the Pelagians later altered the status of the controversy. For when they
noticed that the ears of all the godly shrank from the blasphemous statement

which wholly excluded the grace of the Holy Spirit as not necessary, they
began to speak in this way,

that the grace of the Holy Spirit avails for this, that men can more easily
fulfill through grace the things they are commanded to do through free will.
But later, as Augustine records in the books Ad Bonifacium, the Pelagians
began to say: “Grace assists the good intentions of everyone.” Likewise,
that the will is always assisted by grace in every good work. There certainly
they do not exclude grace. But

when Augustine argues about the perfection that is without sin in this life,
he denies this not only when

the Pelagians exclude the grace of God entirely but also when they join
grace with free will, that is, he

takes away such perfection in this life also from those who have been born
again through the Holy Spirit and are in that newness assisted by the help of
God. These are the things which I said about the
argument of Augustine in De perfectione justitiae against Coelestinus and
which Andrada accuses so fiercely. I am not only able to bear this, but I beg
the reader to examine these arguments of Augustine.

For he will perceive that by means of the thunder of his oratory delivered
after the manner of a tragic

actor Andrada only emits, or rather sells, smoke. For Augustine himself
says in the book in question that the status of the controversy turns on those
two questions: (1) through whom a person is able to arrive at such a
perfection that he is without sin, namely, not through free will but by the
grace of God; (2) when a person shall have arrived at such a perfection,
namely, not in this life but in the life to come.

However, in a matter as plain as this I do not want to detain the reader

longer, and even as I do not worry about unjust prejudgments, so I am not
afraid of fair judgment in the matter of this accusation.

But I do want to impress upon the reader that he should observe what
Andrada is after: that the statements both of Scripture and of the ancients
which take away from men in this life the perfection of

love that is without sin should be restricted simply to the unregenerate only,
so that the good works of

the regenerate are in this life in themselves so perfect that they are able to
endure the severity of divine judgment without the remission of sins. This is
what he is after; but in order that this may not be noticed, he has raised that
loud clamor and shouting against me. For this is a trick used by orators, or

rather by sophists.

THE FOURTH QUESTION

Concerning the Rewards and Merits of Good Works

1 This teaching is set forth in our churches plainly and distinctly from the
Word of God, namely, that the expiation of sins, or the propitiation for sins,
must not be attributed to the merits of our works. For these things are part
of the office which belongs to Christ the Mediator alone. Thus the
remission of sins, reconciliation with God, adoption, salvation, and eternal
life do not depend on our merits but are granted freely for the sake of the
merit and obedience of the Son of God and are accepted by faith.

Afterward, however, the good works in the reconciled, since they are
acceptable through faith for the sake of the Mediator, have spiritual and
bodily rewards in this life and after this life; they have these rewards
through the gratuitous divine promise; not that God owes this because of
the perfection and worthiness of our works, but because He, out of fatherly
mercy and liberality, for the sake of Christ, has promised that He would
honor with rewards the obedience of His children in this life, even though it
is

only begun and is weak, imperfect, and unclean. These promises should
arouse in the regenerate a zeal

for doing good works. For from this we understand how pleasing to the
heavenly Father is that obedience of His children which they begin under
the leading of the Holy Spirit in this life, while they

are under this corruptible burden of the flesh, that He wants to adorn it out
of grace and mercy for His

Son’s sake with spiritual and temporal rewards which it does not merit by
its own worthiness. And in

this sense also our own people do not shrink back from the word “merit,” as
it was used also by the fathers. For the rewards are promised by grace and
mercy; nevertheless, they are not given to the idle or

to those who do evil but to those who labor in the vineyard of the Lord. And
so the word “merit” is used

in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Wuerttemberg Confession,

and in other writings of our
men. In this way and in this sense, we set forth the statements of Scripture
in our churches about the rewards of good works. 1 Tim. 4:8: “Godliness is
of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for
the life to come.” Luke 14:14: “You will be repaid at the resurrection of the
just.” Matt. 5:12: “Your reward is great in heaven.” Matt. 10:42: “He shall
not lose his reward.” Gal.

6:9: “Let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap,
if we do not lose heart.”

Eph. 6:8: “Knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the
same again from the Lord.”

Heb. 6:10: “God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love
which you showed for His sake

in serving the saints.” 2 Thess. 1:6-7: “Since indeed God deems it just to
repay with affliction those who afflict you and to grant rest with us to you
who are afflicted, etc.” Scripture is full of such promises of spiritual and
bodily rewards.

2 Seeing that these things are so, what is there that is in controversy
between the papalists and us with respect to the teaching about the reward
of good works? I reply: The controversy is chiefly about two

points. First, that they teach that the regenerate through their works truly
merit not only other spiritual and bodily rewards but also eternal life itself,
which is to be paid as a reward for the good works and

merits of the regenerate. Second, that they think that rewards are given to
good works not from the grace, mercy, and fatherly liberality of the
heavenly Father but as a matter of debt, because nothing is

lacking in the good works of the regenerate that they should not be judged
to have satisfied the divine

law fully according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal
life. These things are found in the 16th chapter of the Council of Trent.
About this certain things must be said. This can be done more briefly
because many things which belong here have been explained under the
topic concerning

justification and under the third question, in what way and why good works
please God.

3 The Council of Trent says that the good works of the regenerate truly
merit eternal life. Thus they simply repeat and strengthen the fictions of the
Scholastics concerning the meritum condigni, that the works of the
regenerate in this life, because they have been performed in love, worthily
merit eternal life, that is, that eternal life must be given as something owed
by divine justice to good works. For thus they define the meritum condigni.
Lindanus says that good works are the expiations and propitiations for
previously committed sins. Petrus a Soto says that it is the understanding of
the papalist church that one must in this way trust in the good works which
are done through grace that they are necessary and

profitable to expiate sin, to appease the wrath of God, and to obtain eternal
life. And he adds: “If they

were requited with anything less, it would not be a true and appropriate
reward of good works.”

Andrada, the interpreter of the council, with many words disapproves and
rejects the explanation of our

men that eternal life is a reward because it rewards good deeds, even if it is
given on account of something else, namely, on account of Christ; as an
estate inherited from a father is the reward of an obedient son, even if it
happens on account of another cause. And he keeps repeating that the
everlasting happiness of the just is not any less owed to noble works than
are eternal torments to the crimes of the wicked; likewise, that eternal life is
a reward of good works in this way, that it is conferred by God not so much
gratis and freely but as something owed to good works. Thus a true and
genuine
reckoning of merit is maintained, namely, that there is a geometrical
equality between merit and reward.

He argues also that the reckoning of merit and reward conflicts with the
term grace, because these are

opposites, and that for this reason eternal life should be imputed to the good
works of the regenerate as

a reward, not according to grace, but as something owed, because Paul says,
Rom. 4:4: “Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but
as his due.” I have added these things that there may be a fuller explanation
of the 16th chapter of the Council of Trent concerning the merit of good
works.

4 And let the reader observe that to the Tridentine fathers it seemed just too
shameless to ascribe eternal life solely to our merits, therefore, as they
sought to give some indication of modesty, they divided eternal life, for
honor’s sake, between the merit of Christ and the merit of our works. But
this

modesty, such as it is, is not approved by papalist writers. For Lindanus

sharply criticizes what certain

men among the papalists who want to seem more moderate say, namely,
that God rewards the good works of the righteous with eternal life by
gratuitously considering them worthy as a result of His clemency. For he
contends that this is done according to the true reckoning of merit. Andrada,
however,

argues from Paul that this division, which divides the gift of eternal life
between the mercy of God on

account of the merit of Christ and what is owed on account of the merits of
our works, cannot stand.

And certainly, the argument in Rom. 4 is very strong: If it is by grace, then

it is no longer according to debt; but if it is according to debt, then it is no
longer according to grace. And Rom. 11:6 says: “If it is by grace, it is no
longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.”
On the other

hand, if it is of works, then it is no longer by grace, for otherwise work

would not be work. According

to Paul, therefore, there cannot stand together at the same time in the article
of obtaining eternal salvation grace and works, or debt, the Law and faith,
or Christ. Rom. 4:14: “If it is the adherents of the Law who are to be the
heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.” Gal. 5:4: “You are severed from
Christ, you who would be justified by the Law; you have fallen away from
grace.” The fiction of the

papalists that Paul is speaking only of the works of the unbelievers we have
refuted above under the topic of justification. For he is speaking of the
works of Abraham and of the Galatians after their conversion, not of
ceremonial works only, but chiefly of moral works.

5 Therefore eternal life is given either solely through the merits of our
works or solely through the grace of God on account of the merit of Christ.
But Scripture simply takes it away from the works also

of the regenerate and ascribes it to the mercy of God on account of the merit
of Christ. In Rom. 4:7-8

David declares that that man is blessed to whom God imputes righteousness
without works. Likewise (vv. 5, 14): “To one who does not work but
believes … his faith is reckoned as righteousness. … If the

adherents of the Law are to be the heirs, faith is null.” Eph. 2:8-9: “By
grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it
is the gift of God — not because of works, lest any man

should boast.” Titus 3:5-6: “He saved us not because of deeds done by us in
righteousness but in virtue
of His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy
Spirit, which He poured out

upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior.” 2 Tim. 1:9: “Not in virtue
of our works but in virtue of

His own purpose and the grace which He gave us in Christ Jesus.” Matt.
20:28; 1 Tim. 2:6: He gave His

life as the price of redemption for all. 1 John 2:1-2: “If anyone does sin, we
have an advocate with the

Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He is the expiation for our sins.”
Therefore the statement of Lindanus, that the works of the just are
expiations of sins and propitiations for sins previously committed, is
blasphemous. In Rom. 8:33-34, where Paul asks: “Who shall bring any
charge against God’s elect? Who is to condemn?” he does not interpose the
merits of his own works but says: “It is Christ Jesus who died, yes, who was
raised from the dead, … and intercedes for us.” How frequent is

the repetition of that sentiment in John: “He sent His only-begotten Son,
that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
John 6:57: “He will live because of Me.” John 11:25

and 14:6: “I am the life.” John 17:3: “This is eternal life, that they know
Thee the only true God and

Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.” John 20:31: “That believing you may
have life in His name.” 1

John 5:11-12: “This life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life.” Acts
4:12: “There is no other name

under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” In no other is

there salvation except in

Him who is the stone which was at first rejected but afterward became the
chief cornerstone. Rom. 6:23:
“The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life.” Finally
all Scripture is full of such statements. Thus Augustine, in De gratia et
libero arbitrio, speaking of the works of the saints after their justification
says: “Not through our merits does God lead us through to eternal life, but
because of His mercy.” And Bernard says: “It is necessary first to believe
that you cannot have remission of sins

except through the indulgence of God; then, that you cannot have any good
work at all unless He gives

this also; finally, that you are able to merit eternal life by no works, unless it
also is given gratis.” And he adds the reason: “Because, if you want to think
sensibly, you will without doubt find that you are not

able with ten thousand to meet him who comes to you with twenty
thousand.”

6 How great a wickedness and blasphemy it is, therefore, to take away from
Christ the glory of the

propitiation for sins, of salvation and eternal life, which is owed to the
obedience and merit of Christ,

and to transfer it to the merits of our works, or at least to divide it between

the merit of Christ and our merits; as if it were not the greatest sacrilege and
extreme idolatry to give the glory of Christ to another.

But they object that man ought neither to trust in himself nor to glory in
himself, but in the Lord. But

how? Because, they say, we merit eternal life not through the working of
free-will but through the powers given by God. But of this nature were the
virtues of Abraham (Rom. 4) where Paul says: “Not to

him who works, but to him who believes.” Likewise: “Blessedness without
works.” “If it is the adherents of the Law who are to be the heirs, faith is
null, etc.” And Jer. 9:23-24; 1 Cor. 1:30: “Let not the wise man glory in his
wisdom, let not the mighty man glory in his might, … but let him who
glories

glory in the Lord.” But how does a man glory in the Lord? By confessing
that Jesus has been made for

us by the Lord “wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.”

Lest these things be twisted and made to refer to our newness, Paul says,
Rom. 3:27, that boasting is excluded, not on the principle

of works, but on the principle of faith. And in ch. 4 he explains this by the
example of the already regenerated Abraham, namely, that in the article of
justification and of blessedness he did not have cause to boast before God,
as if the imputation were made according to debt and not according to
grace;

but that that man is blessed to whom God imputes righteousness without
works. And he adds in ch. 5:2:

“Through Christ we have access by faith to this grace in which we stand,

and we rejoice in our hope of

sharing the glory of God.” Eph. 2:8-9: “By grace you have been saved …
not because of works, lest any man should boast.” Therefore the Tridentine
explanation is wrong. For when the Scripture teaches that

men should not glory in themselves but in the Lord, it takes away boasting
about eternal life also from

the works of the regenerate and gives it to grace, or the mercy of God, for
the sake of the Son, the Mediator.

7 But they are being frank when at the end they openly declare what is the
fruit and outcome of the teaching that eternal life must be merited by our
works: that men are doubtful, uncertain, and anxious

about their salvation until everyone is rewarded according to his works,

because it is written: “We all
make many mistakes.” But for this very reason the remission of sins,
reconciliation, adoption, salvation,

and eternal life are given not on the basis of our works nor according to
works but freely, according to

grace, for the sake of Christ the Mediator, and they are accepted by faith in
order that the promise may

be sure and firm to us (Rom. 4:16). But in order that they may make this
promise uncertain and weak

for us, the papalists transfer the inheritance from the mercy of God and
from Christ to the merits of our

works. In this way faith is indeed null, and the promise void, if those things
are true which Paul writes

in Rom. 4.

8 It is worth the effort briefly to consider also the arguments by which the
men of Trent establish that the merit of eternal life depends on our works.

9 First, they assert that nothing is lacking in the justified why they should
not fully satisfy the divine law by their works in this life according to the
state of this life. Therefore (they conclude) they truly merit eternal life
through their works. I reply: The major proposition of this argument, which
is passed

over in silence, is very true. And if anyone in this life would satisfy the Law
fully and perfectly through his works with absolute obedience, the
conclusion would certainly follow. For the word and promise of

the Law is: “If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” But
the minor proposition, that the

regenerate perfectly satisfy the Law by their works in this life, is completely
wrong, as has been shown
under the third question. And this decree itself quotes the saying about the
regenerate: “We all make many mistakes.” However, not only he who
makes many mistakes but also “he who fails in one point”

is guilty of all. What therefore can rate as perfect satisfaction? For that they
imagine that according to the status of this life nothing is lacking, this has
been refuted above.

10 Second, they say that the works of the regenerate receive and have the
power and efficacy to merit remission of sins, adoption, salvation, and
eternal life not of themselves but from Christ, in whom the

regenerate are implanted, and from the Holy Spirit, through whose renewal
they do these works. And

truly, the worth of the works which are done in God is not to be despised
but is very great if these works are left in their place and order. But what
their power and efficacy is must not be judged according to

our reasonings, but according to the Scripture. The Scripture, however,

wants the glory and dignity of

meriting the remission of sins, adoption, and eternal life attributed to Christ
the Mediator, not to the works of the regenerate, as we have shown by
testimonies. For Christ did not suffer that He might give

such power and efficacy to our works, that through them we should finally
merit remission of sins, adoption, and eternal life itself; but the Son of God,
the Mediator, Himself acquired those great treasures for us through His
obedience and passion, being made under the Law, in order that all glorying
about

our works may be excluded (Rom. 3:27) and that he who boasts may boast
in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:31).

Therefore I set the following words of Andrada before the reader for
consideration: “The excellent deeds to which the divine Spirit, who dwells
in the mind, incites and impels must have a certain divine
quality.” Andrada acknowledges that the remission of sins, reconciliation,
the adoption, salvation, and

eternal life are not human but divine blessings. For on this account the
Mediator had to be both God and

Man, that His obedience and suffering might be an equivalent price for
meriting such great treasures.

But because the papalists ascribe this to the works of the regenerate,
therefore Andrada is not afraid to

write that it is necessary that the works of the regenerate have a certain
divine quality. I add nothing, but

beg the reader to consider the new divine quality of our works which
Andrada has manufactured in the workshop at Trent.

11 But also this must be considered. Their worth is great, because the
regenerate bring forth fruit as branches united with Christ (John 15:5 ff.)
and because their works are fruits of the Spirit (Eph. 5).

Again, also this should be considered, that in this life the law of sin in the
members of the regenerate

wars against the law of the mind in such a way that they do not perform the
good which they want to do

when the Spirit leads them. And because the law of the flesh causes evil to
be present to him who wants

to do good, it defiles and pollutes the things which the Spirit works in the
regenerate. If, therefore, God would enter into judgment with the works of
even the regenerate, they would not be pronounced merits

worthy of eternal life, but the regenerate would be found guilty because
they hinder, defile, and pollute
the fruits of the Spirit through their flesh. This very thing the saints also
confess: “Who will boast: My heart is clean; I am pure from sin?” And
Isaiah, ch. 64:6, is speaking not only of the ungodly but also of himself; nor
of the transgressions but of the good works, when he says: “All our
righteous deeds are like

a polluted garment.” As Bernard says most beautifully: “If ours is a humble

righteousness, it is perhaps

right but not pure, unless we perhaps consider ourselves better than our
fathers who said no less truthfully than humbly: ‘All our righteous deeds
are like the garment of a menstruating woman,’ For how can there be pure
righteousness where as yet guilt cannot be absent?” Beautiful is also the
statement of Augustine: “We would ascribe much to ourselves in this flesh
if we did not live under forgiveness until the flesh is put off.”

12 The second chief point of the controversy is about the other rewards of
good works, spiritual and temporal, whether the good works of the
regenerate are honored by God with these rewards because divine justice
owes it or, indeed, because of the grace, clemency, and goodness of the
heavenly Father

toward His children for the sake of Christ the Mediator. I said above that
Lindanus is seriously angry

with those who hold that God rewards the good works of the just because
He gratuitously considers them worthy in His clemency. Andrada also
contends that the reward for good works is promised and

given by God not according to grace but according to debt, according to a

true and proper reckoning of

merit! And the Tridentine decree explains the nature of the merit thus:
“Because nothing is lacking in

the justified which could hinder them from satisfying the divine law
through their works in this life and
thus from truly deserving the rewards.”

13 Therefore, although we confess that in those who are reconciled good

works have spiritual and bodily rewards in this life and after this life,
nevertheless, we do not concede that this is done (as the papalists say) not
according to grace but according to a debt of divine justice, on account of a
true reckoning of merit, because nothing is lacking in the works which
would hinder them from satisfying

the divine law. For the Scripture mentions a number of reasons why good
works have rewards, not because divine justice owes it on account of their
merit but through the free kindness of the Father toward His children,
whom He has freely adopted for the sake of His Son.

First, Christ shows in Luke 17:7-10 in a long comparison that the Lord is
not bound as by a debt that

He should thank the servant because he did the things which had been
commanded him. And He adds:

“So you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say: ‘We are
unworthy servants; we have

only done what was our duty.’” For God is our Lord, and we are His
servants for many reasons, as by

reason of our creation, redemption, and sanctification, as Paul says, 1 Cor.

6:19-20: “You are not your

own; you were bought with a price.” Therefore God is not bound to us as by
a debt to give reward for

works which we ourselves owe.

Second, on account of the law of sin in the members, imperfection and evil
adhere to the good works

of the regenerate in this life (Rom. 7). Therefore they cannot endure the
severity of divine justice and
judgment if they are judged without mercy. Accordingly, that they are not
rejected and condemned but

accepted and also honored with rewards does not happen according to debt
or by reason of merit. For in

that case the sentence of the Law would pronounce the opposite: “Cursed
be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the
Law.” Likewise: “He who fails in one point has become

guilty of all.” Therefore it is done from grace and from the regard of His
fatherly goodness toward His

children on account of His Son, the Mediator.

Third, “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the
glory that is to be revealed to us.” (Rom. 8:18)

Fourth, “We are not sufficient of ourselves” (2 Cor. 3:5), but it is God who
works in us, “both to will

and to work for His good pleasure,” (Phil. 2:13). “If, then, you received it,
why do you boast as if it were not a gift?” (1 Cor. 4:7). It is therefore not a
debt on the basis of a true and proper reckoning of

merit but the mercy and goodness of God that God crowns His own gifts in
us.

14 For this reason also the Scripture, which speaks of reward and
retribution, nevertheless does not employ the term “merit.” For where in
Ecclus. 16:15 and Heb. 13:16 the Vulgate has translated “merit,”

the Scripture does not have that word.

15 This reminder is necessary lest Pharisaic pride occupy the minds of the
regenerate through a persuasion of their own worthiness in the exercise of
good works, but that the grace of God may always
and everywhere abound and reign; that the glory of His goodness and
mercy may be praised; and that as

the regenerate perform their good works, yes, even while they receive the
rewards of good works, they

may with humble confession acknowledge their own unworthiness and give
all glory to the mercy and

goodness of our infinitely kind heavenly Father. A most beautiful example

of this is described in Rev.

4:10-11, where the elders cast their crowns before the throne and say:
“Worthy art Thou, our Lord and

God, to receive glory and honor.” And in Matt. 25:37-39 the elect do not
want to acknowledge any merit and worthiness of their works even when
their works are praised by the Son of God Himself before angels and men,
but say: “Lord, when did we see Thee hungry and feed Thee?”

These are the chief points which are treated in the sixth session of the
Council of Trent. The teaching

concerning the fallen and their restoration belongs to the topic of

repentance. But the other things which follow in the writing of Andrada and
in the Tridentine decrees about the doctrine of the sacraments hang

together, as it were, in a continuous context. And because this first part of

my writing has run beyond

my plan and intention, and for certain other reasons also, it seemed good to
divide this reply in such a

way that this would be the first part. I pray to God the eternal Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ with all

my heart that He will preserve the light of His Word, which He Himself has
kindled in our churches by
His Holy Spirit, and that He will not let it be extinguished either by papalist
darkness or by the foggy

mists of the fanatics but that He will preserve us in His true knowledge to
eternal life. Amen!

INDEX

Subject Index

Abdias

spurious writing attributed to 301

Abraham

justified by faith without works 482 f.

made a prophet 51

universal example of justification 527

Absolution

in the indicative mood 597

Abuses

in ecclesiastical ceremonies 38

Adiaphora

offending the weak 634

rites may be adiaphora 269 f.

Advent of Christ

decree concerning 409

dispensation and mystery of 457

Aelian

Gregory of Neocaesarea against 263

Aetius

an enemy of morals 466

Alber, John

defends the Jesuits 25 f.

Allegorical Interpretation 285

See also Scripture, Interpretation

Ambrose

believes the simplicities of the fishermen 330

grace prepares the will 444

spurious book teaches doubt 602

on free will 441 f.

on Gospel of Luke 91

Ambrosius Catharinus

on original sin 316 f.

opening prayer at Trent 34

Anabaptists

refuted by Lutherans 312

Anacletus, Pope

spurious writings 300

Analogy of Faith

interpretation of Scripture must agree with 213, 245

Anathema

on Lutheran doctrine of justification 460

Andrada, Jacobus Payva

at Trent 26, 29, 30, 43

acts proudly 354

argues against Scripture like ancient heretics 82

argues against sufficiency of Scripture 94, 95, 96

arguments concerning justification 523–37

arguments do not support his opinion on free will 455

believes he can overthrow sufficiency of Scripture by logical demonstration

162–63

boastful orator 26, 29, 32, 79

candid man 562

can’t explain away Biblical statements about justification by faith without

works 483

claims papalist traditions must be believed 273

considers tradition a surer rule than Scripture 162

corrupts Augustine’s statement about works of heathen 405

corrupts Chemnitz’s words about necessity of good works 581

defends Jesuits against Chemnitz 26

denies apostles received command to write 146

distorts Augustine’s teaching on free will 439–41

emits and sells only smoke 652

exalts oral tradition over written Word 77 f.

explains many things in decrees of Trent 30

explains mind of council on justification 519

explains understanding of council of justifying faith 561 f. , 575

falsely says Lutherans count authority of fathers as nothing 256

fears wrath of common people if sufficiency of Scripture is too strongly

attacked 44

helps understand decrees of Council of Trent 307, 387

holds Pelagian opinions 394

imagines Chemnitz is not at all cautious 110

imprudently betrays secrets of the Council of Trent 321

impudence worthy of a cardinal’s hat 372

interprets Council of Trent on free will 428–30

knows Hebrew but does not always follow it 331

maintains catholic faith is larger than Scripture 161

maintains concupiscence in regenerate is not sin 359

maintains the unregenerate do many good works 389

misuses words of Cyril 96–97

oration to the church at Braunschweig 650 f.

Orthodox Explanations of the Controverted Points of Religion 26, 30

peddles wind in behalf of oral tradition 79

perverts Augustine’s words 96

pronounces disobedience to prelates a frightful sin 369–71

reveals many mysteries of the Council of Trent 43

reveals the trickery of the decree on original sin 317

seeks to uphold a bad cause with bombastic speech 216

slanders Chemnitz as a forger 650 f.

thinks of Germans as beasts 370

uses childlike sophism 368

uses faulty logic 359

Anointing

of bishops in Roman church 298

Anomoeans

a species of Arians 263

Anselm

exhortation to a dying brother 511

on justification 510–12

on origin of feast of the Conception of Mary 381

Antichrist

antichristian power buried in the papal heart 188

kills innocent people for translating Scripture 201

kingdom upheld by traditions 273

Antilegomena 185

called apocrypha by Jerome 180

called ecclesiastical writings in early church 180

declared canonical against testimony of primitive church 187–90

distinction necessary 191

distinction taught by Augustine 192 f.

establish no dogma 189

for edification 189

honorable place in church assigned by Chemnitz 181

not of equal value with canonical books 180 f.

not properly called canonical 195

papalists claim later church can give them equal authority with canonical
books 180 f.

proper use of 180

received as canonical long ago 188

Antinomianism

Lutherans accused of 619

Apelles

Marcionite 394
argued one need only believe in Christ crucified 567

Apollinarius

on sufficiency of Scripture 302

Apocrypha 184 f.

allegorical interpretation proved from Shepherd of Hermas 285

Augustine on 183, 191

distinction necessary 191

establish no dogma 189

Jerome on 147 f. , 184, 193, 195

legitimate use of 189

not properly called canonical 195

on same level as canonical books at Trent 39, 180 f.

rejected, but read by many 284

source of many traditions 284–88

why not canonical 185

Abgar, spurious epistle ascribed to Jesus 84

Acts of Andrew 103 f.

Acts of Philip 103 f.

Acts of Peter 103 f.

Acts of Thomas 103 f.

Apostolic Constitutions 287

Ascension of Paul 130

Canons of the Apostles 169

Gospel According to the Egyptians 285

Gospel of Nicodemus 286

Journeys of Peter 103 f.

Paul and Thekla 104, 178

Protogospel of James 286

Apocryphal Books, Old Testament Book of Enoch 52, 183

Tobit 188

Apology (Augsburg Confession) faith without good works does not justify
581

Apostles

the only authoritative teachers in apostolic church 108

had task not only of teaching but also of supervision of doctrine 108

had testimony of miracles that they might not err in doctrine 635

their epistles explain Book of Acts 105

Apostolic Constitutions

not apostolic 287

Apostolici

a gnostic sect 287

gnostics and literalists 255

Aristotle

on free will 415

on term “canon” 170–71

philosophical method used by Andrada 322

praises good works in themselves 398

Arius

claimed to represent apostolic tradition in Thaleia 277

condemned by the ancients 257

arrah

a part of the full price 598

Artemon

a gnostic 277

Articles of Faith

Christians need to know 466

papalists want to establish new 383

stated by Jrenaeus and Tertullian 240 ff.

Assurance. See confidence

Athanasius

misused by papalists 265 f.

on authority in the church 258

on source of Arius’ doctrine 277

on sufficiency of Scripture 152

statement to Epictetus 265 f.

Augustine

calls apostles hands of Christ 97, 98

calls O. T. the doctrine of commandments written outside of man 75

calls Scripture “divine scales” 170

clearly explains the word sin as he uses it 345

denies that unregenerate do good works 400

distinguishes between operating and cooperating grace 450

fought way out of Manichaeism with Scripture 160

mitigates inept statements of certain fathers 261 f.

on authority of councils 31

on authority of Scripture 41, 47, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 173 f.

on authority of Scripture in ancient councils 39

on concupiscence in regenerate 339 to 341

on depths of wisdom in Scripture 166

on difficult passages in Scripture 208

on doctrines beside what Scriptures teaches 126

on four modes of interpretation 211

on free will 439 ff.

on free will as having been set free by God 448 f.

on justification 506–10

on need to use Greek and Hebrew with translations 204

on noncanonical books 171 ff.

on obscure passages in Scripture 106, 165–66

on Scripture as rule for teaching 152

on translations of Scripture 198

on sufficiency of Scripture 94, 151 f.

on virtue of the unregenerate 399

on what constitutes a credible reason 174f.

refutes errors of Cyprian on rebaptism 158–59

retractions of own errors 260

says City of God believes the Scriptures 150

says Scripture cannot err or deceive 252

tells how he had been led to faith 227

used articles of faith in interpreting Genesis 247

Authority, apostolic

in churches not founded by an apostle 132

to confirm doctrine of nonapostles 133

Timothy’s authority not equal to Paul’s 113

Authority in the church

papalists seek absolute power in the church 636

authority of the fathers 262

Babylonian Thais

for the papacy 205

Baptism

See also Infant baptism

ancient customs at 267

Andrada believes it removes foulness from concupiscence 363

blessing of the water 267

Lombard on essence of 293

papalists make it sole instrumental cause of justification 571

papalists teach it removes original sin 343

remission of sins is complete in 337 f.

sins committed after 299

Basil

defends Dionysius of Alexandria 262 f.

on authority of Scripture and of the fathers 257 f.

on Gregory of Neocaesarea in statement against Aelian 263

on importance of word study 211

on origin and purpose of Scripture 38

on Scripture as rule for teaching 152 f.

on sufficiency of Scripture 152 f.

on unwritten traditions 224

Basilides

appealed to unwritten traditions 277

taught justified Christians could engage in every passion 466

Bernard

death-bed confession 510 f.

Bishops, succession of. See Succession Body

called the “stuff” of sin 363

Bonaventura

on justification 510

teaches justification by infused grace 518

Book of the Reformation for Augsburg Confession 367

Cajani

fabricated The Ascension of Paul 130

Canons of the Apostles

a forgery 287

Carpocratians

appealed to unwritten traditions 276

Cassianus

Pelagian statements of 451

Catholic Church

Augustine on authority of 227

Celibacy of priests

Paphnutius calls it a new law 287

Ceremonies. See Rites

Cerinthus

attacked deity of Christ 91

Eusebius on 91

Chemnitz, Martin

biographical sketch 17–24

Chiliasm

in ancient church 279

condemned by Irenaeus 265

Papias embraced 279

Christ
active and passive obedience of 503

fulfilled the Law according to the Scriptures 502–3

fufilled the Law for sinners 498–99

fulfilled the Law with perfect obedience 530

made our righteousness 498–99

must be apprehended by faith 597

salvation taken from Him by Council of Trent 521

vicarious satisfaction of 499

Chronology, Biblical

Chemnitz on 50–51 Chrysostom

calls Scripture the “other mode of navigation” 150–51

on authority of Scripture 157

on fleeting nature of oral tradition 134

on Gospel of Luke 91

on Gospel of Matthew 86

on purpose of Scripture 127

on reading of Scripture 215

on Scripture as source of truth 156

Scripture interprets itself 154

Scripture necessary on account of sin 150–51

Church, the true

cannot be separated from the true faith 163

is not always the visible communion called “church” 164

indefectibility of 163

is subject to the Word 163

must be heard as teacher 257

sometimes lives hidden 163

Church, apostolic

authority of 238

guarded apostolic tradition and doctrine 231–32

Churches, primitive traditions of 228

Cicero

on term “canon” 171

praises Greek language and literature 199

traces outstanding virtues to divine inspiration 426

Civil righteousness

righteousness before men 478

unregenerate may have 398

Clement of Alexandria

errors of 280–83
famous in antiquity 279

on Mark 88

quotes many things from apocrypha 285

says philosophy justified the Greeks 391

Clement of Rome

author of Epistle to Corinthians 301

spurious writings ascribed to 300 f.

Coelestinus

Augustine against 651 Commandments, Ten. See Law

Commandments of the church

have no express command in the Word of God 625

Andrada appeals to example of apostles, Acts 15 633

Andrada quotes spurious Ignatius for 637

Andrada says Christ commands obedience to 631

Andrada says Christ gave prelates infinite power to legislate 632

Council of Trent says Christians must keep 617

commandments of pope placed above commandments of God 626

concern rites and ceremonies 626

papalists seek absolute power in 636

Conception of Mary
Decree of Pope Sixtus IV 380

festival of 380–82

indulgences at festival of 381

Concupiscence

Andrada believes it was present in incorrupted nature 319

Council of Trent on 342–44

fathers of Trent philosophize coldly about 374

forgiven but not sanctified by Baptism 339

frequently called sin by Paul 346

how ancients understood 350–55

Lutherans agree with Augustine on 346

not judged sin by courts 348

papalists distort Augustine’s statements 353 f.

papalists say it is called sin figuratively in Scripture 346–47

sometimes called punishment of sin 352

weakened in Baptism 341

Andrada and Jesuits argue it is not sin 368

Andrada believes Baptism has removed foulness from it 363 f.

Augustine on 340 f.

Augustine, Ambrose, Hilary, Cyprian, and Jerome on 350–55.

Augustine calls it a sin 353

Augustine argues it is not a sin 345

Catholic Church does not understand it to be a sin 335

Council of Trent does not understand it to be sin 350

does not condemn believers if they resist it 346

how Andrada argues that it is not sin 359

how papalists argue it is no sin 356 to 374

Lombard says it is penalty for sin 352–53

papalists say God does not hate it in regenerate 342

papalists torture statements of the fathers on 367

Scripture teaches it is sinful 356 f.

Concupiscence in the unregenerate

Pighius argues it is not sin 368

Confidence

faith is 599

how Andrada argues faith is not 608 f.

of faith rests on Word 594

synonym for faith in Scripture 595 f.

true teaching of sacraments shows faith is confidence 596 f.

Conscience
tortures of under papacy 461

Constantine the Great

on authority of Scripture 153 f.

Contrition

does not merit justification 555

precedes justification 554

Conversion

change in the mind 422

steps of 438

Cooperation

of unregenerate in conversion taught by Trent 547

Corinth

errors in doctrine at 117

Councils

authority of most salutary in the church 31

decrees to be examined according to Scripture 31

ancient councils did not thrust bare decrees on church 33

Council of Basel

decreed Mary not subject to original sin 380

Council of Chalcedon
the decree of Emperor Martian 32

Council of Mileve

dealt with Pelagianism 516

Council of Nicaea

authority of Scripture at 39

Constantine’s speech at 153 f.

Council of Orange

on free will 449

condemned Pelagianism 451

Council of Trent

allows Pelagian opinions 390

anathematizes great church fathers and Scripture itself 405, 453

badly begun 33, 34

Chemnitz does not acknowledge it a true Christian council 30, 31

Chemnitz will examine it according to Scripture 32

condemns Biblical teaching of justification 515

craftiness in article on justification 515 f.

demands same reverence for tradition as for Scripture 272 f.

denies justification is solely by faith and mercy for Christ’s sake 514

denies justification is solely by the remission of sins 514

denies Scripture is rule in all matters of faith 162

denies sufficiency of Scripture 44, 82

enumerates Biblical books 168

frames decree on original sin cunningly and deceitfully 209, 342, 447–53

has no intention of correcting anything according to Scripture 40

insidious cunning of 539

on concupiscence 342–44

on free will 428–30

places apocrypha on par with canon 39

pope demands Lutherans agree without examination 31

secrets of council betrayed by Andrada 321

sets forth decrees in bare fashion 33, 43

slanders the churches of the Augsburg Confession 516

speaks differently about scripture than ancient fathers 161

teaches what heretics in Augustine’s time did not dare 394 f.

teaching on justification 514–22

Tertullian would call Tridentine fathers lucifuges 41

Creation

Moses could have story only by revelation 57

story of six days of creation does not teach deliverance from sin 567
corrupted by sin 397

is not per se evil 397

Creeds, ancient

See also Rule of faith

antecedents of according to Irenaeus and Tertullian 240–42

ecumenical creeds firmly held by Lutherans 247

express true teaching of Scripture 247

Cross, sign of the

received by tradition 267

tradition concerning 285

Cusanus

on authority of Scripture at ancient councils 39

on custom of ancient councils to place gospels in the midst 154

Cyprian

Augustine does not hold his letters canonical 259 f.

calls gospels “tradition” 224

erred in application of Scripture 159

erred in matter of rebaptism 158 f.

favored rebaptism 253 f.

was influenced by Montanists 298 to 299

on use of antilegomena 180

on rebaptism 260

warns against boasting of own righteousness 590

Cyril

on authority of Scripture 155–57

on difficult and easy language in Scripture 166–67

on sufficiency of Scripture 96–97

Decalog

See also Law

deposited in ark 55

Decorum

what is understood by 269

Decretals

papal decretals placed above Scripture 190

Demosthenes

on term “canon” 171

Deposit, the

how heretics understood 233

what it is 238

Descent into Hell, Christ’s

tradition about 285–86

Dionysius of Alexandria

defended by Basil 262–63

Doctrine

apostles bound by form of doctrine received from Christ 632

apostles do not err in 635

apostles made witnesses of 77, 633

called heavenly 47, 50, 52, 55, 64, 74, 196, 435, 635

called the doctrine of Christ 74, 79, 80, 81, 632

corrupted by the time of Christ 64

doctrine of Christ and doctrine of apostles identical 80, 100

doctrine of Christ at first propagated orally 79, 80

doctrine of the apostles one doctrine 104, 105

doctrine of the Gospel the proper doctrine for the church 592

first made known in Hebrew 196

Gospel taught by all apostles 118

justification chief topic in 461

must be confirmed by apostolic authority 133

not preserved pure by oral tradition 275

of apostles proved from Old Testament 100 f.

often falsified and corrupted 47

papalists demand its basis be established in oral tradition 50

Paul’s agreed with that of other apostles 117

people in Old Testament had it longer orally than in writing 74

prelates bound by 635

preserved pure by Scripture 52

received from apostles 80, 81

recorded in the New Testament 77

to be taught from Scripture 55

transmitted orally only less than 20 years 74

Donatists

appealed to Cyprian 172

Doubt

about remission of sins taught in papal church 586

argument against from sealing with the Spirit 597 f.

believers do not display doubts as virtues of faith 611

Christians should continually contend against 592

Council of Trent teaches doubt 551, 587–91

expressly reproved in Scripture 600

the fruit of teaching salvation by our merit 658

how papalists argue from Scripture 688

papalist doctrine like that of Novatians 601–2

papalist doctrine of doubt is blasphemous 592

papalist doctrine not in accord with Augustine, Bernard, and other fathers
602 f.

papalists have reason to doubt because they teach only the Law 604

papalists reckon doubt about state of grace a virtue 593

papalists upright when they say their theology is doctrine of doubt 590

spurious book under Ambrose’s name teaches doubt 602

taught by papalists in the interest of revenue for papal kingdom 587

Easter

debate about date of 289

Ebion

accepted only Gospel of Matthew 93

believed to have been a person 91

Eck

calls the Gospel an ink-theology 46

denies apostles received command to write 146

fought with Scripture 71

Election. See Predestination.

Emser
fought with Scripture 71

Epaphras

preaching confirmed by Paul 132–33

Epiclesis 267

Epiphanius

asks forgiveness if he has erred 260

on apocryphal Ascension of Paul 130

on Scripture as rule for teaching 153

says many heathen were justified solely by natural law 391

takes great delight in traditions 286

Erasmus

bowed to interpretation of the church 214

Errors (in doctrine)

apostles do not err, prelates can and do 635

how fathers treated one another’s 265

many have crept into papal church 38

that seem honorable 265

through traditions 645 f.

Errors (in exegesis)

need not be against the faith 247

Eternal Life

sola gratia 656 f.

Scholastics teach it is merited by works of regenerate 557

Eucharist

See also Mass

Platina says apostles used only Lord’s

Prayer and words of institution 304

traditions about 293

Eunomius

enemy of morals 466

Eusebius

on Cerinthus’ heresy 91

on date of Matthew’s Gospel 83

on Luke 90

on Mark 88

on Matthew 86

on three classes of Biblical writings 179 f.

Evagrius

on synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon 154

Exclusive particles
teach sola fide 584

Expiation

papalists teach good works of the regenerate expiate sins 654 f.

Faith, as uncertainty

Ambrosius Catharinus on 586

Dominic a Soto on 586

fathers at Trent disagreed on teaching that faith is uncertainty 586

Gropper publicly condemned this papalist teaching 586

Faith, Christian

is the same in all the world 241 f.

Faith, dead

only an outward profession 566

Faith, general

deals with all things revealed in the Word of God 572

does not justify 566

embraces historical knowledge of Scripture and general assent 566

presupposed by justifying faith 566

various objects of according to Hebrews 11 571 f.

Faith, historical

by faith papalists understand historical knowledge and mere assent 559

Faith, implicit

Andrada on 214

as papalists understand it 214

called Babylonian Captivity by Chemnitz 214

rightly understood 215

Faith, justifying 565–85

according to Andrada can be had without the Word 392

according to Andrada faith justifies because it prepares soul for

righteousness 559

according to Council of Trent 409, 551

anathematized by Trent when understood as trust in divine mercy 559

apprehends Christ 577

as confidence misused by many 610

basic error of Council of Trent concerning 563

brings forth good works 575

cannot trust in its charity in trials 576

certainty of gained through Word and sacraments 611

Council of Trent against sola fide 615

does not take its power from love but from its object 581

effectual through love 539

exercises itself through patience 572 f.

faith without works does not justify 581

genuineness not to be judged by feelings 579

gives assent to whole Word of God, and in it to the promise of Christ 567

Gospel of forgiveness its proper object 569 f.

great, moderate, and weak faith 579

the hand with which we apply the Gospel to ourselves 577, 594 f.

how James may be used 539

imputed for righteousness because it apprehends Christ 533

issue between Lutherans and papalists, whether faith is confidence 593

justification is by faith only 526–27

looks on Christ in His office as Mediator 567

Luther’s explanation of sola fide 585

Lutherans do not teach a faith with out repentance and good works 580, 584

must be judged from the Word 579

must not, according to Pighius, be placed simultaneously in heart and will

578

not dead but living 539

not idle if true and living 582

not possible unless one is willing 439

object is the free mercy of God offered in Scripture 565

object is Christ with His merit 573

object is the righteousness of the Gospel 574

often beset by doubt 592

opposed to works in article of justification 583

papalists argue free mercy of God not the chief object of 579

papalists say sola fide excludes love, which inheres in the regenerate 580

papalists teach a faith which fits their understanding of justification 590

particle sola suffers dastardly misrepresentations in Council of Trent 584 f.

proper object important for doctrine of justification 570

Scholastic explanation of 559–60

sola fide fitly expresses exclusive particles of Scripture 584

sola with fides often employed by the fathers 584

steps of justifying faith in Scripture described as knowledge, assent, desire,

confidence 577–78

synonyms in Scripture show faith is confidence 595

teaching of Council of Trent on 546 to 552

true faith is not without works 581

weak faith justifies because of its object 579

whether it is confidence or uncertainty with respect to remission of sins

586–611

why it justifies 490, 503, 533

works through love 563

Faith, miracle-working 566

Faith, Roman Catholic

according to Andrada it is larger than the Scripture 161

Scholastics teach “formed” and “unformed” faith 561

understood by Council of Trent as preparation for justification 558 f.

Fasting

called apostolic tradition by papalists 297

commandments of the church, not of God 637

contradictory traditions about 288

made an adiaphoron by Tertullian 296

rules claimed to be apostolic 288 f.

rules of Montanus about 295 f.

Fathers (of the church)

how they treated one another’s errors 265

inept statements of 263

Lutherans diligently study consensus of 256–57

must be interpreted according to analogy of faith 262

often made concessions to customs of the times 264

papalists seek protection from 263

some would rather err with fathers than be correct with others 264 to 265
Forgiveness of sins. See Remission of sins

Free Will

according to Thomas Aquinas 556 to 557

Ambrose on 441 f.

analogies of chained man, sick man, bound bird 429

argument: God does not command impossible things 445 f.

arguments advanced for 445–46

Aristotle on 415

as understood by Council of Trent 558

Augustine on 416 f., 439–46

Augustine’s distinction between grace working and grace cooperating 436,

450

basic questions concerning 425

before and after conversion 424

can hear but cannot obey God’s commands 423

can observe external discipline 418

cannot perform spiritual actions through own powers 440

chief points at issue 420–27

Council of Trent teaches free will prepares itself to receive grace 410

Council’s decrees fashioned deceitfully 447–53

decrees of Trent cover up and confuse the real issue 424 f.

dispute is about the mind and will of man 413

doctrine clearly set forth in Scripture 411

foolish arguments about 421

four states of 423 f.

free for good only when God has set it free 448

Gabriel takes freedom to be the essence of the will 413

gift of God 440 f.

grace prepares the will 444

Holy Spirit heals man’s nature 435

how Pelagians change status of controversy 651–52

how Prosper. Bernard, and Justin speak of it 414

importance of doctrine of for understanding of the Gospel 410–11

in the regenerate the mind and will do something in spiritual matters 436

in what sense man can be said to have a free will 415–16

Justin does not speak circumspectly enough on 444

Luther calls it a passive capability 444

Luther’s statement that man is passive with regard to regeneration 451–53

man has free will to do evil 416–17

negatively described 431–32

not an idle but necessary debate about 435

not free with respect to good things 416

not possible to sin without 417

opinion of Council of Trent according to Andrada 428–30

papalists anathematize statement of Augsburg Confession 426

Pelagians and papalists play with ambiguity of term 448

Pelagius on 443

Pelagius at one time held man could conceive spiritual impulses through
natural powers 425 f.

positively described 432

produces meritum congrui according to papalists 557

properly a faculty of the mind 413

Prosper on 442

real contention about natural powers for spiritual actions 447

said to cooperate in man before conversion 550

Scholastics’ passive se habere 452 f.

sound doctrine on serves Christian faith and life 438

spiritual impulses not from nature but from Holy Spirit 436

teaching of Scripture about 431–38

Tridentine decrees play with term to conceal the matter itself 413

various questions concerning 413–20

what it can do in the unregenerate 413 f.

whether unregenerate man has a free will in spiritual things 420

Gabriel

on prevenient grace 556

Galen 322

Germans

Andrada thinks of them as cattle 370

Gerson

on absolution 597

on justification 510

says primitive church had greater authority in matter of canon than later
church 184

says Scripture is rule for teaching 150

Glaucias

gnostic, claimed to be interpreter of Peter 277

appealed to unwritten traditions 277 to 281

trusted in knowledge 466

Gospel

See also Doctrine

Andrada calls Law Gospel 534

consists chiefly in true interpretation and application of the words and deeds
of Christ 125–26
what all belongs to 569 f.

Government

cannot be established without political virtues 398 f.

civil government testifies to free will 425

Gregory Nazianzen

on logical deductions in theology 249

Gregory of Neocaesarea

statement against Aelian 263

Grace

See also Gratia infusa

alone justifies 656 f.

and steps of conversion 438

Augustine’s distinction between grace working and grace cooperating 436,

450

discussion of term 494 f.

effects in man what nature cannot work 440

prevenient grace according to Gabriel 556 f.

in article of justification 582

in article of justification placed in opposition to works 494

in justification to be understood of gratuitous mercy or favor of God 494

in Scripture sometimes means grace and favor, sometimes gifts 494

meaning illustrated by adverb “gratis” 495 f.

meritum congrui as preparation for grace 555

papalists contend it is infused newness 493

prepares the will 444

prevenient grace, according to Council of Trent, predisposes unregenerate

to conversion 547

what papalists mean when they say sinner is justified by grace 571

Grace, infused. See Gratia infusa

Gratia infusa

Bonaventura teaches justification by 518

Gabriel says it renders man worthy of eternal bliss 557

Council of Trent teaches Justification by 517 f., 459, 616

good works, according to Council of Trent, merit increase of 618

how Andrada twists term “justification” to agree with 523

how infusion takes place, according to Gabriel 560

papalists insist we are justified by 493

papalists place formal cause of justification in 590

preparation for 556

Gratis

illustrates meaning of term “grace” 495

meaning of in justification 495 f. , 582

righteousness of Christ imputed to us “gratis” 501

Greek

long the language of the people of the Eastern church 199

praised by Cicero 199

why the language of the New Testament 198 f.

Gropper

confesses that nature of Gospel requires it be accepted by faith 575

how he proved papalist satisfaction 206

Heathen

thought by some fathers to be justified apart from faith in Christ 391

Hebrew

only language of whole world before Flood 196

womb of all other languages 196 f.

Hegesippus

committed apostolic tradition to writing 300

Heretics

are seduced and seduce others with unwritten traditions 278

forsake clear Scriptures for obscure passages 244

try to bolster their errors with the fathers 263

Hermeneutics
See also Scripture, interpretation of Allegorical interpretation 156

Heroic impulses

aroused by God also in unregenerate 389 f.

in heathen 390 f.

must be distinguished from the grace of justification 399

Hilary

calls our bodies the “stuff” of all vices 363

jokes about number of books in canon 188

on interpretation of Scripture 210 f.

on perverting Scripture 144

says understanding of a passage must be taken from reason for saying it 232

says we do not have Scripture by merely reading but by understanding it

207

Holy Spirit

as earnest money of our salvation 598

author of Paul’s epistles 483

God kindled light in our churches by 663

good works of regenerate are fruits of 660

governs church according to revealed Word 635

is present to the ministry of the church 635

moves Christians to life of sanctification 622 f.

kindles love in believers 439 f.

sealing with to remove doubt 597 to 599

works by means of the Word 423, 435

Hope

according to Council of Trent always coupled with fear and doubt 589

Horace

quotation about a big mouth 29

Humility

does not make faith doubtful 605

must be joined to faith 604 f.

Ignatius

epistles of contain much good 302

epistles of have been adulterated 302 f.

Image of God

at creation and in renewal 323 f.

Imputation

true meaning of term 532

use of term in article of justification 530 f.

Andrada makes it mean infusion of righteousness 530 f.

a weird etymology 531

basis in the righteousness of Christ 504, 530, 533

means that justification is by gratuitous mercy of God 532 f. , 583

Jesuits explain it of infused righteousness 531

Osius says it is a new term 531

true meaning of term 532

use of term in article of justification 530 f.

Indulgences

and papal doctrine of perfection of good works 641

Infant baptism

church has received the tradition from the apostles 249–51, 269

Council of Trent on 312

Scriptural reasons for 250 f.

testimonies from church fathers 249 to 251

Inspiration, divine

Cicero traces outstanding virtues to 426

Internal Testimony of the Spirit

See Testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum

Interpolation

of ancient writings 303

Irenaeus
bestows high praise on apostolic tradition 231

calls Scripture pillar and foundation of our faith 81 f.

gives rules for interpreting Scripture 245 f.

on date of Matthew’s gospel 78, 83

on divine command to apostles to write 80

on instruction of proselytes 102

on Luke 90, 91

on Mark 88

on obscure passages in Scripture 165

on purpose of New Testament writings 81

on proud man 29

on tradition 224 f.

on tradition of Pharisees in his time 66

on why there are four gospels 99

recites almost word for word Apostles’ Creed 232, 236, 240 ff.

says apostles delivered Gospel to us in Scripture 150

says church received the faith from the apostles 80, 81

says four gospels were norm and standard of primitive church 98 f.

Jerome

calls antilegomena “apocrypha” 180

does not want his interpretations considered oracles 212

explains some of his inept statements 263 f.

on apocrypha 147 f.

on arguments procured from work shops of hangmen 33

on authority of Scripture 31, 41, 155

on councils declaring anything contrary to Scripture 126

on man’s self-deception about his own purity 590

on Matthew 86

on sufficiency of Scripture 152

on things taught without authority of Scripture 278

on use of apocrypha 193

“sword of the Word strikes through traditions falsely called apostolic” 228
f.

translated Scripture into Dalmatian language 201

Jesuits

Chemnitz wrote booklet on 25

held Scripture to be a mutilated, in complete, and imperfect teaching 43

mode of life 28

origin of order 27

purpose of order 25, 28

teaching on original sin 329

use faulty logic 368–70

Josephus

has fable about inscribed pillars before the Flood 52

Julian, the Pelagian

why Christian church detested him 402

Justification (in Scripture and the fathers of antiquity)

Abraham, universal example of justification by faith 527

Ambrose on 507 f.

Anselm on 510

apart from the Law 583

assent to Word and contrition precede justification 554

Augustine on 506–10

Basil on 505 f.

Bernard on 508–10

brings us the grace of God 469

by faith alone, without deeds of the Law 526 f., 551 f.

by grace alone 656 f.

by mercy of God in Christ 494, 561

cannot be understood unless knowledge of other parts of the Word precede

566 f.
chief topic of Christian doctrine 461

doctrine of original sin important for 343 f.

does not exempt from keeping of commandments 615

dying monks comforted with 511

excludes every kind of good works 527 f.

exclusive particles used by Paul 582 to 584

fathers mostly take word “justify” for renewal 468

fathers often compelled to understand “justify” forensically 475

fathers used the term in different senses 505

forensic meaning in Augustine, Hilary, and Cyril 475

Gregory on 508

Hilary on 506

how Latin meaning of “justify” can be understood according to analogy of

faith 468

how Scripture teaches 493 f.

in John 474

in Peter 474

is being translated into state of grace 469

Jerome on 508

Lutheran definition of 467

Lutherans do not confuse remission of sins and new obedience 465

meaning of in sedes doctrinae 473

meaning of “gratis” 495 f.

meaning of

471

not on account of inherent righteousness in believers 500

obedience and merit of Christ justify the sinner 491

order God employs in leading to justification 553 f.

Origen on 505 f.

Paul fulminates against justification by works 526

remission of sins and renewal are connected 465

Scripture removes it from good works of the regenerate 482–84, 485, 488 f.

Scripture removes it from our newness and transfers it to satisfaction of

Christ 470, 478 f.

strife concerning justification not about words but matters 468

testimonies of church fathers 504–13

term “grace” discussed 494 f.

the term “justification” 469–79

there is only one 542–44

things from which Scripture takes

away justification 477–92

through acceptance of righteousness of Christ by faith 500 f.

through imputation of righteousness of Christ 500, 504

true issue between papalists and Lutherans 465–68

we plead Christ’s righteousness in the judgment of God 497–504

why faith justifies 490, 503, 533

why set forth in judicial terms 476 f.

Word and sacrament is instrumental cause of 570

Justification (in the Council of Trent)

accepted by faith and works 575 f.

according to Trent the Christian grows in justification 460

also sanctification according to Trent 458 f.

Andrada’s explanation of Trent’s opinion 561 f. , 575

by keeping commandments of God and of the church 627 f.

justification by faith and gratis according to Trent 549

of ungodly according to Trent 457 f.

preparation for according to Trent 458, 547, 553 f.

sola fide anathematized 460, 551

teaching of Trent conflicts diametrically with Scripture 542

teaching of Trent on 514–22

teaching of Trent takes justification away from Christ 521

Trent affirms it is by remission of sins and sanctification of inner man 514 f.

, 517
Trent avoids terminology of Scholastics but defends their doctrine 553

Trent condemns Biblical teaching on 515

Trent condemns Scriptural teaching on 462

Trent denies justification solely through forgiveness of sins for Christ’s sake
514

Trent foists swamps of Scholastic error on church 462

Trent nourishes monstrous things concerning 562

Trent on “by faith” and “gratis” 459 f.

Trent on nature and causes of 548

Trent on what justification is and on its causes 458 f.

Trent repeats and strengthens teaching of Scholastics on justification 519

Trent teaches growth in justification 538–41

Trent teaches justification by gratia infusa 517 f.

Trent teaches justification by our love 518–20

Trent uses Scripture language but denies its meaning 553

what Trent considers necessary for understanding of 387

Justification (according to papalists)

Bonaventura teaches justification by infused grace 518

by love 519

effect of justification its cause 524

first and second 540 f.

justification and sanctification one and the same thing 472

means filling the soul with infused quality 523

papalist teaching fosters pure doubt 590

papalists accuse Lutherans of denying sanctification and renewal 579 f.

papalists admit justification has been obscured in their midst 461 f.

papalists conceal true issue 465

papalists explain justification analogously to sanctification 470

papalists name only Baptism as instrumental cause 570 f.

papalists obscure article by arguments from Scholastics 461 f.

papalists rob church of comfort by sophistical arguments 552

papalists say faith, love, and hope together justify 580

papalists say it is by infused grace 469, 493 f.

papalists slander Lutheran teaching on 465 f.

papalists understand word “justify” according to Latin manner 467 f.

Pighius on 501

services of love hold chief place in 562

through merit on man’s part 560 f.

tortures of conscience as result of papalist teaching 461

Justin

calls Socrates and Heraclitus Christians because they lived according to

right reason 391
does not speak circumspectly on free will 444 f.

Kabala

See Traditions, Jewish

Kiriath Sepher

Canaanite city full of books 53

Lactantius

on clarity of Scripture 167

Last Times

Chemnitz believes they are upon the world 277, 628

Latin

widely used in western church 199

Law

law which does not want to be tested is suspect 33

Plutarch: “Laws must be made according to what is possible” 639

Law (Ten Commandments)

Andrada defends papalist position on 643–45

Augustine denies regenerate can keep law perfectly 642, 651

Bernard denies man can keep Law perfectly 643

Christians should not seek remission of sins in 568

Council of Trent says God does not command impossible things 615
doctrine of good works calls for true explanation of question 640

fulfilled perfectly by Christ 502 f., 530

good works of regenerate belong to righteousness of 490

handmaid of grace according to Luther 554 f.

how papalists understand works of the Law 482

Jewish fables about writing 53

keeping must be perfect 481, 488 f., 493, 645 f.

misuse by papalists 535 f.

norm and rule of righteousness 493

papalists contend perfect keeping of Law is both possible and easy 615,
617, 639, 641 f.

papalists do not consider imperfection of regenerate sin 648

promise of eternal life for perfect fulfillment 480

purpose 535

regenerate do not consider the commandments burdensome 647 f.

regenerate do not fulfill Law perfectly 489 f.

regenerate have through Holy Spirit a beginning of keeping 640

sets forth way of life 535

sets forth will of God 630

to be always with the king 55, 61

to be read in hearing of all people 55

to be written on posts and lintels 55

Law and Gospel

both contained in both Old and New Testament 534 f.

how papalists confuse 535

Liberty, Christian

Christians must stand in 637 f.

Christians should not use in adiaphora when it would offend the weak 634

Lindanus

corrupts statement of Gregory on traditions 255

denies Book of Romans is a systematic presentation of the faith 121, 123

imagines Peter wants to confirm traditions 141

limits John’s purpose in writing 93

on traditions 255

says apostles do not tell us how they led Gentiles to faith 102

says Book of Acts contains nothing about rites which Catholics hold
essential 103

says venial sins do not defile a Christian 650

says Word of Gospel abhors writing 75

speaks of Scripture like ancient heretics 82

twists Athanasius 265 f.

Logic
See also Sophistry

Andrada uses sophistry 368 f.

argument from what is possible to what is 359 f.

faulty logic of Jesuits 368–71

faulty logic of papalists 359 f. , 379

good conclusions from clear Scripture have testimony of Word 625

legitimacy of logical deductions in theology 249–54

Lombard

on essence of Baptism 293

Love

kindled in believers by the Holy Spirit 493 f.

Council of Trent teaches justification by our love 518

Luther

on the Law as handmaid of grace 554 f.

translation of Eph. 3:3-4 128

Lutherans

ask permission of Council to test all things 33

papalist teaching of doubt justifies separation from papal church 586

Lyra

on strength of tradition among Jews 69

Manichaeans

errors of 443

why Augustine does not believe Manichaeus 228

read apocryphal writings 183

how fathers disputed against 262

Marcionites

claimed disciple of Matthias as teacher 277

Marriage

Tertullian destroys 295

Martial

spurious epistles of 302

Martian

law about matters which had been judged and ordered by a synod 32

Mass

how canon of Mass grew over 600 years 304 f.

Means of grace

Holy Spirit works through Word 435

Word of God is 423

Melanchthon

Chemnitz copies from Melanchthon’s Loci 257

on authority of Scripture and of the church 257

Merit

basing salvation on our merit tends to doubt 658

how Lutherans employ the word merit 635 f.

how papalists establish merit of works 658 f.

it is wicked to take the glory from Christ and give it to our merit 657

of good works of the regenerate according to Trent 616

Scripture does not employ this term 662

Trent divides eternal life equally between merit of Christ and our merit 655

Meritum condigni

concept of Scholastics 390

explained 541

in Andrada’s understanding of justification 562

Scholastics philosophize crassly about 463

teaching of Scholastics and Council of Trent 654 f.

the Helen for which the Council of Trent fights 541

thought by Council of Trent to earn eternal life 563

Meritum congrui

according to Trent a result of free will 559

explained 541, 557, 560

merited by good works of the unregenerate 389 f.

Osius prefers “preparation or disposition for grace” 555

said to merit a measure of grace 390

said to merit first grace 557

Scholastics philosophize crassly about 463

Ministers, ordained

no sure criterion of pure doctrine 47

Ministry

sets Christ before men for faith and justification 500

Miracles

gained faith and authority for prophets 57 f.

Modesty

prelates lack 635

Monhemius

view of original sin condemned by papalists 320

Montanism

chief doctrines of 293 f.

gave some traditions to Roman Church 293 f.

grants only one repentance after Baptism 297

influenced Cyprian 298 f.

influenced Roman Church via Tertullian 297 f.

rules about fasting 295 f.

Moses

planned to write chiefly doctrine of the Law 54 f.

New Obedience. See Righteousness and Sanctification

Nannius

misquotes Athanasius 265 f.

Nature

distinction between nature and the corruption of nature 398

Natural knowledge of God Andrada believes heathen were saved by 392

Nicephorus

on canonicity of antilegomena 188

on date of Matthew’s Gospel 83

on dark passages 105–6

on epistles of Paul 105 f.

on Matthew 86

on reasons for all Paul’s epistles 107 to 109

on spurious writings 300 f.

Noah

a guardian of purity of doctrine 50

Novatians

taught doubt with respect to forgiveness of sins 601

Oecumenius

says Paul wrote as much as readers could comprehend 127

Baptism is not 570

Origen

had received his doctrine from Clement of Alexandria 283

Jerome calls his teaching “poisoned” 283

on authority of Scripture 155, 157 f.

on ecclesiastical traditions 283

on origin of infant baptism 249

on Scripture as rule for teaching 153

on upright lives of some false teachers 154 f.

Original sin

See also Concupiscence

according to Scripture total corruption of our nature 330 f.

Andrada denies it is total corruption of our nature 320, 330

Augsburg Confession condemned for defining 316

Augustine on basis for teaching 258

comprehensive treatment 311–13

corruption cannot be recognized sufficiently 327

declared by fathers to afflict all men save Christ 378 f.

declared the least of all sins by Andrada 329

decree allows various opinions but not doctrine of Augsburg Confession

315 f. , 321

decree of Trent framed cunningly 342

defined by papalists as not a defect but as inherited guilt 316

described positively and negatively 326

difference between before and after Baptism 337

fathers of Trent ashamed to set forth their doctrine clearly 320 f.

how Scripture describes 324–28

important for article of justification 343 f.

in the regenerate 325

in the unregenerate 324

Jesuits teach nothing is sin unless done knowingly and willingly 329

Lombard says remnants remain after Baptism 338

minimized by Scholastics 315

must be explained from Scripture, not philosophy 322

must be known if grace of Christ is to be understood 324

one must distinguish between nature as God’s creation and original sin
which corrupts nature 321
papalist doctrine detracts from the Gospel 319

papalist doctrine of merit depends on their doctrine of original sin 335

papalists falsely claim Augustine 345 f.

papalists make it least of all sins 319 f.

papalists philosophize coldly about 327

papalists reject Augustine’s definition 316

papalists teach it is eradicated in Baptism 335, 371

placed in entire man, body and soul 326 f.

placed in heart and will 326

placed in the mind 326

present from conception 330

question of remnants after Baptism important for faith 343

remnants after Baptism 335–73

remnants after Baptism not good but evil 339

Scripture excepts only Christ 377

teaching of Council of Trent 311 f.

teaching of remnants after Baptism a chief point of controversy 335

teaching of Scripture about 322–28

Trent divided on 312 f.

Trent does not include Mary under 377

trickery in decree of Trent 317

tyranny of devil in 326

whether renewal begun in Baptism is perfect in regenerate 337

whether Virgin Mary was conceived without 375–83

words of Scripture thunderbolts against papalist doctrine 327, 331

Osius

argues about justification from philosophy 525

calls “imputed righteousness” a new term 531

equates interpretation of the Roman Church and Word of God 213

objects to Lutheran teaching of justification 521

Pantheologia

on preparation for grace 555 f.

Papalists

care neither for apostles nor the fathers but only to preserve their rule 204

concerned only about the papal kingdom 391 f.

like the heretics seek protection from the fathers 263

misuse the fathers in behalf of their traditions 252

Paphnutius

calls celibacy of priests a new law 287

Papias
Eusebius considered him only moderately gifted 278

gave many cause to fall into chiliasm 279

on Mark’s gospel 88

trusted oral tradition 278

Paraclete

Tertullian on 293 f.

Tertullian says He brings discipline to perfection 297

Patriarchs

enjoyed long life 56

spoke far more than words recorded in Moses 56 f.

Paul, the apostle

apostolic authority of 120

apostolic authority of impugned 125

vindicates his apostleship 120

Paul of Samosata

condemned by the ancients 257

Pelagianism

See also Pelagians and Pelagius

Andrada defends 451

Council of Trent allows Pelagian opinions 390, 494 f.

papalists condemn, but not seriously 426

papalists defend Pelagian opinions on free will 449

Pelagians

altered status of controversy on perfection of good works 651 f.

argued against Augustine as papalists now argue against Luther 365

ascribe to free will the power to refrain from sinning 390

played with ambiguity of term “free will” 448

used inept statements of fathers 261

Pelagius

hid his poison under the word “assist” 450 f.

on free will 425 f. , 443

was condemned because he ascribed justification to keeping the Law 627

Perezius

on traditions 98

Perfection of the regenerate

Augustine on 507, 648 f., 652

Scripture denies it 649 f.

taught by papalists 356–59

Trent studiously avoids word “perfection” 641

Perseverance in faith
according to Council of Trent, known only by revelation 557

Christians should have sure hope of 607 f.

how Christians should be admonished to 607

used by papalists in behalf of doubt and uncertainty 607

Peter a Soto

defines apostolic tradition 273

denies oral tradition of Jews to be accepted like Scripture 111

Peter of Alexandria

refuted Meletius 257

Petrus Galatinus

gives supposed succession of Jewish tradition 68

Philosophy

enlightens the mind with knowledge of God, according to Andrada 395

Greeks saved by, according to Clement of Alexandria 281–85

honorable place of in human life 396

monstrous things from carted into church by Scholastics 562

not to be commingled with doctrine of the church 396

Tertullian calls philosophers patriarchs of heretics 396

Phormio

on the usefulness of slander 116 Photius

says canon does not allow addition or subtraction 161 f.

Pighius, Albert

calls it mistake to fight Luther on basis of Scripture 46

denies apostles received command to write 146

does not define original sin 315

on justification 501

on traditions 98

published a long writing on original sin 315

says authority of church superior to authority of Scripture 45

speaks of Scripture like ancient heretics 82

Platina

on the Eucharist 304

Plutarch

on term “canon” 171

says laws must be made according to what is possible 639

Polycarp

handed down apostolic tradition 240

sets forth doctrine of Scripture 225

Pontifical

on traditions 98
Pope(s)

called Babylonian Thais 205

called scarlet beast and man of sin 627

earthly god of Tridentine fathers 40

has all rights in shrine of his heart 209

received from Christ full power to rule the church, according to Andrada
626

said to be able to decree things contrary to Scripture 209

some monsters 68

some noted for learning and piety 300

substitutes his will for reason 33

tortures of conscience under 461

Pope Sixtus IV

decree concerning sinlessness of Mary 380 f.

Prayers for the dead

church fathers on 291

Prayer toward the east 267

Predestination

Chemnitz lists for decrees 605 f.

Christians judge from Word, do not pry into secret counsels of God 605

Council of Trent warns against rash presumption 549 f.

Council says it can only be known by revelation 550

established not doubt but basis for certainty 606

used by papal is ts to foster doubt 605

Prelates

can err 635

said to lack modesty 635

Preparation for righteousness

Council of Trent on 409

Prophets, false 47 f.

Prophets, Old Testament

accord with book of Moses 58

raised by up God and given authority by mighty miracles 57

wrote sum and chief parts of their entire teaching and added clearer
interpretations as time passed 58

Prophets, New Testament

acknowledged authority of apostles 121

Propitiation for Sins

belongs to Christ only 653, 657

Proselytes

Irenaeus on instruction of 102 f.

Prosper
denies unregenerate do truly good works 389

on free will 442

Purgatory

grew out of teaching of doubt 587

Quintilian

says some errors seem honorable 265

Rabbi Abraham of Spain

on Jewish tradition 69

on traditions 98

Reason

in use of Scripture 249–52

cannot establish anything concerning God’s love for us 609

Rebaptism

no example in Scripture for either side 252–54

of Cyprian rejected 260

Reconciliation. See Justification

Regenerate, the

Holy Spirit begins to heal nature in 337

Holy Spirit works new impulses and powers in 337

not hateful to God because their sins are forgiven 340

papalists teach God hates nothing in 335

papalists teach they can satisfy Law with perfect obedience 343

renewal not perfect in this life 337

Remission of Sins

Andrada equates it with extirpation, or eradication, of sins 371

Christians daily pray for 360 f.

distinguishes saving faith from faith of devils 567

doubt about taught by papalists 586

granted solely for Christ’s sake 653

in article of justification 583

perfect in Baptism 337 f.

precedes new obedience 464

Trent says sins not remitted to those who seek remission solely by faith 587

Renewal. See Sanctification

Repentance

Lutherans teach necessity of 521

we cannot rightly repent without hope of forgiveness 563

Revelation

falsely claimed in apostolic times 108

God has revealed Himself and His will 47

Gospel called “revealed doctrine” 47

is from beginning of the world 49

no promise of new revelations 50

special revelations corrected the doc trine when it became corrupted 50–52

Word of God called “revealed” 635

Rhetorius

taught that all religions show right road 394

Righteousness, inherent

See also gratia infusa

believers have through Holy Spirit 500

is imperfect and cannot justify 525 f.

Righteousness of Faith

believes that Christ has satisfied the Law for us 528

Righteousness of the Law

Andrada explains 527 f.

Scripture calls new obedience of the regenerate righteousness 539 f.

what is meant by 527 f.

Rites

agreement on rites could be reached if there were agreement in doctrine 268

an excellent law about 307

apostles instituted 268

as aids to piety 269

Augustine on oppressive rites 270

Christian liberty places a limit on 269

instituted by the church for order and decorum 268 f.

may be adiaphora 269

may be changed 270

Paul distinguishes rites from commandments of God 120

some rites explain the doctrine 268 f.

when rites must be opposed 270

which may be retained and which rejected 306

which rites may be observed 271, 626

Ruardus Tapperus

on grace and free will 453

Rufinus

corrupts translation of Josephus 205

on use of antilegomena 180

Rule of faith

Andrada makes understanding of church the rule 163

canonical Scripture the surest rule of faith 161, 169 f.

Irenaeus and Tertullian on 240–42, 247

Paul on 127, 131 f.

Sacraments

true teaching of shows faith is assurance 597 f.

Sadducees

accepted only writings of Moses 110 f.

Saints

legends of shameless 301

Salvation

taken away from Christ by Council of Trent 521

Sanctification, or renewal

Augustine denies it is perfect in this life 338

Augustine teaches it is gradual 366 f.

benefit of the Son of God 485

Christians must grow in 538 f.

Council of Trent teaches growth in justification through sanctification 538–

44

gift of the Holy Spirit 485, 580

grows in exercise of faith and obedience 424

Lutherans teach necessity of 521

man not justified by 485, 580

merited for us by Christ 465

necessary for Christians 466

not perfect in this life 337, 357 f. , 361–63

papalists falsely accuse Lutherans of denying 579 f.

papalists teach perfect renewal in this life 358

Scholastic doctrine

Council of Trent seeks to foist it on their own church and on churches of the
Augsburg Confession

553

Scripture, authenticity of

books cared for and transmitted by church 227

church knew authors of books of Scripture 176

how established 182

witness of earliest church expressed in reliable histories 177

Scripture, authority of

above authority of fathers 261

ancient catechetical instruction stressed 160

as understood by godly in Old Testament 60

Augustine on 41, 60, 155 f. , 159 f., 259, 262

authority and dignity shown by God writing Decalog 53

chief points of controversy with papalists 101

Chrysostom on 157, 277

confirmed by term “canonical” 70

Constantine the Great on 39, 153 f.

Cyprian on 158

Cyril (or Origen) on 157

denied by heretics 233

denied by papalists 46

from divine inspiration 176

Holy Spirit source of 108

how Lindanus argues against 59

how Pighius diminished it 88

in ancient councils 39, 154

Irenaeus on 81 f.

Jerome on 31, 41, 155

mind confirmed more by one testimony of Scripture than by 600

human testimonies 106 f.

ministers under this authority 635 f.

New Testament directs us to written Old Testament 59

not from church 175 f.

Origen on 155, 157 f.

papalists claim authority of church bestows authority on Scripture 45

papalists fight against in behalf of traditions 71

papalists see they are vanquished if they grant 41

Paul’s writings rule of faith 127

Peter on 140 f.

Scripture authoritative and binding 171–73

summary of teaching of Scripture on 148 f.

Tertullian on 156

Thomas Aquinas on 99

Word of God is judge 257

Scripture, canonicity of 168–95

antilegomena and apocrypha not properly called canonical 195

Augustine makes canonicity dependent on attestation of authorship 181–83

canon does not allow addition or subtraction 161 f.

canon the rule of faith 189

church the witness, not source, of canonicity 166 f.

Eusebius on canonical books 179, 195

how Old Testament canon came into being 58

noncanonical books not binding 171 to 174

Old Testament canon known from New Testament 177

papalists claim canonicity bestowed by church 45

spurious books cannot be made authentic by church 180

tongue on scale 170

Trent destroys difference between canonical books and apocrypha 39

whence name “canon” 127, 169 Scripture, clarity of

all things for faith and godly living are clear in Scriptures 245

Ambrose on 167

Augustine on 167

Chrysostom on 167

denied by Pighius 46

Lactantius on 167

Nicephorus and Augustine on obscure passages 106

no mysteries of faith taken out of obscure passages 165

papalists deny 41

purported obscurity 164 f.

purpose of dark passages 106

Scripture contains many difficult and obscure statements 165, 207

Scripture written for all ages 81

why papalists attack 71

Scripture, Holy 43–216

cannot be rejected by church 180

Council of Trent enumerates books of 37

foundation and pillar of faith 81

given for all ages and times 145 f.

human writers adorned by miracles and divine testimonies 54

inaugurated when God wrote Decalog 52, 62

prophets and apostles have same doctrine 144

Scripture, individual books of Genesis

Augustine’s commentary on 247

covers 2, 300 years of history 56

not written before Decalog 52 f.

Exodus

book of the covenant written after the Decalog 53

Joshua

Book of Jasher deals with history under Joshua 53

Disputes about the book of the wars of the Lord 53

Ruth

does not contain all that is necessary for faith and life 137

Job

story believed by some to have been found by Moses with Jethro 52

The Four Gospels

the evangelists give the wholesome words of the Lord Jesus 114

Matthew

Chrysostom on 86

copy written by Barnabas found in Barnabas’ tomb 88

date according to Eusebius 83

date according to Irenaeus 78

date according to Nicephorus 83

date according to Theophylact 83

Eusebius on 86

Gospel said to have been approved by St. John 92

Jerome on 86

Jerome on Hebrew original 87

Matthean authorship 181 f.

Nicephorus on 86

said to have been carried to India 87

time and purpose of writing 86 to 88

when written 74, 78

why written 86 f.

earned approval of Apostles 178

Irenaeus on 88

Nicephorus says Peter dictated Gospel to Mark 88

Rufinus calls this gospel a pious theft 88

said to have been approved by Peter in written statement 88

time and purpose of writing 88

Luke

Ambrose on 91

Chrysostom on 91

earned approval of apostles 177 f.

Eusebius on 90

Irenaeus on 90 f.

Theophylact on 90

written to safeguard apostolic doctrine 89 f.

John

time and purpose of writing 91 f.

written to combat purported oral traditions 93

Acts of the Apostles

tells how apostles preached and taught 102

Epistles of Paul

approved by judgment of the church 121

Peter saw Paul’s epistles 143

repeat in writing what apostle had taught orally 121, 131

show system according to which Christian faith was taught 122

written to guard against corrupt traditions 108

Romans

a methodical presentation of the Christian faith 121–23

when written 74

why written 122

1 Corinthians

meant for whole church everywhere 117, 119

when written 74

where and why written 116–19

2 Corinthians

written to vindicate Paul’s apostolic authority 120

Galatians

contains the doctrine by which children of God are begotten and born 126

indicates for what purpose it was written 124 f.

written for all generations 126

Ephesians

introductory material 127 f.

Philippians

introductory material 131

Colossians

Paul’s reason for writing 132

1 Thessalonians

Paul’s purpose in writing 107

the first apostolic epistle 107

2 Thessalonians

written against false teachers 107 f.

written soon after I Thess. 107

1 Timothy

written that church might have apostolic picture of ministry 112 to 114

2 Timothy

maintains sufficiency of Scripture 111

Paul’s last will and testament to the church 134

provides clear testimony concerning whole N. T. 134

written after most of New Testament was completed 111

Titus

when and why written 115, 116

Philemon
according to Pighius not intended to be read in churches 46

Hebrews

author of 186

Chemnitz will not dispute about author 134

Roman church rejected this epistle 186 f.

James

Eusebius on authority 194

how statements on faith may be used 539

Jerome on 185 f. , 193

why antilegomenon 185 f.

Jude

Eusebius on authority of 194

Jerome on authority of 193

repeats much of 2 Peter 147

why antilegomenon 186

why written 146 f.

1 Peter

repeats what Peter had taught orally 141

2 Peter

why antilegomenon 186

1 John

scope of epistle 144 f.

2 and 3 John

Chemnitz doubts authenticity 147

why antilegomena 186

Apocalypse

ascribed to apostle John by Irenaeus 187

why antilegomenon 187

written at God’s command 146

Scripture, inspiration of

canonical authority from divine inspiration 176

command to write denied by Eck, Pighius, and Andrada 146

Holy Spirit author of all Scripture 136

Moses wrote from dictation 54

Scripture cannot deceive 252

Scripture divinely inspired 51, 52, 62, 176

Scripture, interpretation of 207–16

allegorical interpretation 285

Augustine on 212

Augustine teaches four modes of interpretation 211

Chrysostom used allegorical interpretation 156

church, not pope, has authority to interpret 211

Council of Trent on 38

Cyril on 211

discussion useful for 210

examples of misinterpretation by Roman Church 213 f.

fathers trusted judgment of the people 216

freedom in matters of interpretation must be maintained in church 213

God wants interpretation present in the church 207 f.

Hilary on 208

Hosius declares interpretation of Roman church the Word of God 40

how to interpret dark passages 245

importance of context for 211

importance of word study for 211

Irenaeus on rules of 245

Lutherans gratefully use commentaries of fathers 208

must agree with rest of Scripture and analogy of faith 213

must be according to analogy of faith 245 f.

obscure passages not to be interpreted against clear 165

Origen: God must open Scripture to us 210

Origen on 212

papalists claim right to depart from clear meaning of text 213 f.

papalists want Trent’s interpretations accepted blindly 209 f.

reason for claim to depart from clear meaning 211 f.

right of interpretation claimed for “holy mother church” 207

Scripture interprets itself 154

tied to apostolic succession of bishops by Council of Trent 209

tradition is useful for 287

use of creeds in 247

Scripture, New Testament 71–149

See also Scripture, books of contains in writing what apostles taught orally
99 f.

first writing at apostolic council 83 f.

original manuscripts of N. T. books still in existence at time of Tertullian

108

time and purpose of individual books 86–149

willed by Holy Spirit 101

written according to will of God 80 f.

Scripture, norm, rule, standard of faith

canon, norm, and rule 56

Irenaeus on 98 f.
most certain rule of faith 161, 169 f.

norm and rule of faith 62

norm and standard 101

used by Ezra for reforming church 61

See also Scripture, books of

how Augustine speaks of 75 f.

how Old Testament canon came into being 58

whatever is brought up by Jews must be judged by this norm 58

Scripture, reason and purpose of writing as stated by writers 38, 49, 80, 84,
121, 135 f. , 167

must be established by testimony of writers themselves 107

to make continued revelations unnecessary 54

to make us certain 114 f.

to preserve and propagate prophetic teaching 58 f.

to preserve the heavenly doctrine 52

to safeguard apostolic doctrine 84 f.

why apostles wrote 148 f.

Scripture, sufficiency of 101, 104

according to Hebrews 134

Andrada against 44, 94–96, 98

Apollinarius on 302
Athanasius on 152

Augustine on 94, 97

confirmed by term “canonical” 170

Cyril on 96 f.

denied by Council of Trent 44

Irenaeus on 81

Jerome on 152

John on 93 f., 144 f.

Moses’ writings contain what God judged necessary 57

not every book in Scripture of itself sufficient for faith and life 110 f. , 119

papalists deny 41, 46, 72–76

papalists deny, Lutherans uphold 138

papalists grant for Old Testament but deny for New 72

some prophets did not write, and some writings were lost 104 f.

sufficient in spite of brevity 129 f.

summary of New Testament teaching on 148 f.

taught by whole New Testament 148

testimony of ancient church 161

why papalists deny 71

Scripture, translation of
Antichrist kills people for 201

Apostles used Septuagint but did not make it authentic against sources 204

Augustine on comparison with original text 204

Augustine on translations into Latin 198

Christ and apostles used translations 198

Council of Trent declares Vulgate authentic 38, 196

does not violate majesty of the heavenly doctrine 200 f.

Jerome translated Scripture into Dalmatian language 201

Latin translations before the Vulgate 199

made necessary by universality of the Gospel 200

papalists condemn necessary translations 199

Septuagint 197 f.

Septuagint counts more years from Adam to Moses 78 f.

so men of other languages can read 197

Syriac, or Chaldaic 197

Vulgate weakens passages on original sin 331

why Trent declared Vulgate authentic 471

Scripture, understanding of

knowledge of important for all 216

knowledge not required in the unlearned 215

Sealing with Spirit against doubt 597

Security, carnal

extinguishes faith 608

Servetus

has no testimony from church 258

Shem and Shemites

guarding of the heavenly doctrine 50

Simon Magus

heresy of 466

Sin

See also Sins

Andrada pronounces what departs from commandments of prelates a

frightful sin 369 f.

Augustine on argument that only the voluntary can be sinful 330

Chemnitz defines 370

distinctions among kinds of sin 324 f.

explanation of word “sin” 345–49

fathers of Trent philosophize coldly about 374

God not the cause of 418

God permits but does not effect sin 418 f.

how actions become sins 403

is lawlessness 329 f.

not all sins are equal 404

political axiom: Nothing has the nature of sin unless it is voluntary 367

Sinlessness

ascribed to many regenerate by Andrada 373

possessed only by Christ 372 f.

Sins, mortal 346

drive out faith 649 f.

Sins, reigning 346

Sins, venial 346

Andrada contends they are not against perfection of love 650

as distinguished from mortal 649 f.

do not defile a Christian, according to Lindanus 650

good men fall into them daily 615

Slander

Phormio on usefulness of 116

Sola fide. See Faith and Justification

Sophistry

See also Logic

of papalists re: sola fide 551 f.

Sozomen

on opening of Nicene Synod 153

Spurious Books

See also Apocrypha

Abdias 301

Canons of Apostles, a forgery 286

condemned by ancient church 180

Eusebius on 180

fabricated to strengthen papal kingdom 300

genuine writings altered to bolster papal kingdom 300

how to recognize 108

interpolations in writings of fathers 602

list of found in Eusebius 184

Martial 302

on what criterion rejected 179

papalists defend their foremost traditions with 301

Staphylus

“proves” perfection of good works from corrupted text 206

twists Athanasius 265

Stromata
of Clement of Alexandria 281–83

Succession of bishops

originally guarded the truth 237

Succession of papalists

has monsters in it 68

Succession of presbyters

guarded apostolic doctrine 235

Symbols, ancient. See Creeds, also Rule of faith

Talmud

established by same reasoning as papalist traditions 229

filled Jewish church with unspeakable errors 70

Jewish tradition 59

product of supposed oral tradition 67 f.

Talmudists argue for tradition as papalists do 111

when written 70

written to stop Jewish conversions to Christianity 69

Tertullian

became a Montanist 293

bestows high praise on apostolic tradition 231

calls some people lucifugas 41

calls the Symbol the rule of faith 247

destroys marriage 295

on authority of Scripture 156

on authors of gospels 177

on Gal. 6:16 126

on importance of Scripture for church 239

on laws which do not want to be tested 33

on longer life of John 178

on original manuscripts of New Testament books 108

on twice-married priests 294

says Paul wrote what he had taught orally 113

Testimonium Spiritus Sancti internum assures us of salvation 578, 603

how Andrada seeks to evade 599

Thaleia

a writing of Arius 277

Thammerus

taught salvation without Word of God 391

Theodoret

canon does not allow addition or subtraction 161

on Constantine’s opening of Nicene Synod 153 f.

on why Romans was placed first among epistles 123

Theophylact

on date of Matthew’s gospel 78, 83

on Luke 90

says gospels were written on account of heretics 151

says Paul wrote what his readers could understand 127

Thomas Aquinas

on preparation for grace 555 f.

on why gospels had to be written 99

Thucydides

on meaning of 128

Tradition 219–307

concerning date of Easter 289

concerning the Eucharist 292

devil weaves snares for men by 69

necessary for interpretation of Scripture according to Epiphanius 287

papalists misuse the word 224

what belongs to by Roman Catholic definition 273 f.

word not used by ancients in one and same way 220

word used in Scripture 223 f.

Traditions, apostolic

agree with Scripture 226, 237, 276 f.

claimed by Arius 277

customs called apostolic traditions when fathers did not know their origin
288

defined by Peter a Soto 273 f.

how to recognize 251 f.

Irenaeus praises 231

Lutherans embrace genuine apostolic tradition with deep reverence 246 f.

many “apostolic traditions” merely old customs 290 f.

many barbaric tribes hold 231

papal traditions and apostolic traditions not the same 110

papalists demand all “apostolic traditions” be received as apostolic 291

papalists oppose them to Scripture 225

Tertullian praises 231

true 235

Traditions, unwritten

See also Scripture, sufficiency of among non-Israelite nations 56

Andrada falsifies words of Ignatius in interest of 299 f.

Andrada peddles wind in behalf of 79

Andrada’s arguments for 68 f. , 98

apostolic warnings against 275

appealed to by Cerinthus 92

appealed to by Gnostics 277–81

appealed to by Irenaeus and Tertullian 234

Augustine complains they are put above Law of God 628

Augustine’s position on 252–54

authority according to Council of Trent 39

Basil exalts unduly 292 f.

Basil on 224

called a more certain rule of faith than Scripture 162

cannot preserve purity of doctrine 109

Christ fought Pharisees over 636

Chrysostom on unreliability of 134

Clement of Alexandria and 280

concern ancient rites, not dogmas 267 f.

contradictory at times 288 f.

Council of Trent demands all traditions of eighth kind be received with

same reverence as Scripture

272 f.

Council of Trent on 219

difference between tradition of primitive church and that of papal church
228

eight kinds of distinguished by Chemnitz 220–307

eighth kind a complete repertory of errors and superstitions 273

eighth kind has brought whatever belongs to kingdom of Antichrist 273

eighth kind: those that pertain to faith and morals but cannot be proved by
any testimony of Scripture

272–308

fifth kind concerns dogmas based on clear reasoning from Scripture 249 to
255

first kind delivered orally, then reduced to writing 223–26

forged 71

fortress in which Council of Trent places its salvation 71

fourth kind concerns true interpretation of Scripture 244–48

fruit of is “poisoned doctrine” 283

handed down by Jews through known succession 67 f.

heretics appeal to 234, 275 f.

intended to strengthen papal rule 243

Jerome says sword of the Lord strikes through apostolic tradition falsely so
called 306

Lindanus argues for 59, 75, 103

Lutherans do not reject all traditions 305

Lutherans receive second kind reverently 227

Lyra on the Cabala 69

many based on apocryphal books 284 to 288

many from Montanism 293 f.

many have no testimony from ancients 299

many in disuse among papalists 293

many instituted by popes 305

Montanist traditions into Roman church via Tertullian 297 f.

must agree with Scripture 131

must be upheld by interpolating writings of ancients 303 f.

must give way to Scripture 255

of papalists very similar to those of Pharisees and Talmud 64–70

of Tertullian peddled as apostolic 294

on same plane with commandments of God for papalists 627

Origen praises 283

Pandora’s box of corruption and superstition 219

papalist tradition cannot be proved by any statement of Scripture 219, 226

papalist tradition not apostolic 235

papalists ascribe to Christ 98

papalists claim they are apostolic 220

papalists fight most of all about eighth kind 272

papalists paint all traditions out of same pot 220, 272

papalists palm off smoke about 304

papalists place defense of their whole cause in 307

papalists quote Scripture fraudulently for 226

papalists rage for tradition against better knowledge 74

papalists should also accept Talmud 59, 111, 229

papalists teach Christ wanted greater part of His teaching left to oral
tradition 44 f.

papalists treat this topic faithlessly 302

papalists try to argue for from Scripture 76 f., 109

papalists twist Tertullian’s statement 234

Papias on 278 f.

pervert purpose of the Law 536 f.

Peter did not trust 140–43

Pighius calls it the inflexible measuring instrument by which the Scripture

too is measured 46

placed on par with Scripture 37

purity of doctrine not preserved by 49–54, 118

sacred books received by 68 f.

second kind concerns care of church for and transmission of Biblical books
227–30

seventh kind, certain rites and customs traced back to the apostles 267–71

shaped by Scripture 255

sixth kind concerns catholic consensus of the fathers 256

source of all corruption in doctrine of Pharisees 65 f.

statement of Gregory Nazianzen corrupted by Lindanus 255

Tertullian against 276

third kind, doctrine of apostles summed up in ancient creeds 231 to 243

used by heretics to seduce 278

Unity of Faith 130 f.

Unregenerate

See also Works, good, of the unregenerate

according to Andrada do many good works 389

in what way their virtues are sins 400

what free will can do in 414 f.

Urbicus

says Peter commanded to fast on Sabbath 288

Valentinus

claimed disciple of Paul as teacher 277

Varinus
on term “canon” 170

Vicarius satisfaction of Christ the basis

for imputed righteousness 530, 533

for whole human race 499

Virgin Mary

Chemnitz wants nothing taken away from her dignity 383

decree of Council of Basel on sinlessness 380

how festival of Conception of Mary was instituted 380 f.

how teaching of sinlessness developed 379 f.

miracles ascribed to 382

not considered sinless by Augustine 377 f.

teaching of sinlessness contradicted by many medieval theologians 379 f.

whether conceived without original sin 375–83

Virtues, in unregenerate

Augustine on 399 f.

Vulgate

See also Scripture, translations

examples of what Chemnitz considered erroneous translations 202 f.

Lutherans do not reject 201

Lutherans object to its being made authoritative 201

many passages changed in favor of papalist dogmas 205

much of translation is bad 201

often does not express true sense of Scripture 39

often does not follow Jerome 202

Trent makes authentic 39 f.

War about words

controversy between papalists and Lutherans is not 467

to be avoided in church 194, 467

the fathers condemn 255

Will, human

active in all spiritual acts 440

Augustine on 436 f.

God works in believers to will what is right 436 f,

seat of original sin 326

seat of sin 330

through grace evil will is changed 442

Will of God

called “revealed” 635

is contained in the Law 630

must be learned from God’s Word 630

Word of God

in the mouth of ministers is Christ speaking to us 631

is the judge 257

means of grace 435

means through which Holy Spirit works in mind, will, and heart of man 423

sure Word, confirmed with miracles 47

Works, good 614–63

Andrada corrupts Chemnitz’ words about 581

considered according to their aims 403

done according to God’s commandments 629 f.

do not precede but follow justification 563

God’s Word the norm of 630

how taught in churches of Augsburg Confession 619–24

justifying faith brings forth 575

Lutherans urge 623 f.

must be done according to Decalog 630

papalists accuse Lutherans of prohibiting good works 619

papalists intimate Lutherans consider Decalog of no concern for Christians

619

papalists invent self-chosen acts of worship 587

rewards and merits of 653–63

Scripture shows truly good works 628 f.

self-elected works are not 629

statements from Council of Trent 615–18

what good works God wants done 625–38

why Christians should do 619–22

why papalists misrepresent Lutheran teaching 621

Works, good, of the regenerate acceptable for the sake of Christ, the
Mediator 653

Andrada’s axiom on perfection of 643 f.

cause growth in justification according to Council of Trent 538 f.

chief point of controversy between papalists and Lutherans 481, 654

Council denies regenerate sin venially in 618

Council says they truly merit eternal life 616, 654

Council studiously avoids word “perfection” 641

fruits of the Spirit 660

God works it that the regenerate will and do 419

have rewards in this life and in life to come 653 f.

imperfect 660–62

in which sense necessary for Christians 466

must be done without Pharisaic pride 662

papalists are mercenaries with respect to 622

papalists ascribe perfection to 397

papalists cunningly play with words about 642 f.

papalists do not consider imperfection in them sin 648

papalists teach they expiate sin 654 f.

praised in Scripture 482

propitiation for sins not to be attributed to 653

rewards are by grace, not by desert 652

rewards should arouse zeal in regenerate 653

salvation by, according to Andrada 540

subject calls for true explanation of keeping of the Law 640

teaching salvation by works leads to doubt 658

whether perfect in this life 639–52

why papalists fight so hard for 640

works of supererogation 639

Works, good, of the unregenerate 385 to 405

Ambrose on 404 f.

Andrada says many good works done by unregenerate 389–91

Anselm on 405

arguments of papalists 403–5

Augustine on 399, 401

Council regards as preparation for grace 558

Council says they are not sins 550

decrees of Trent concerning 387

delight Pharisaical reason 402

distinguished from vices by their aims 400

have reward in this life 399

sins before God in two ways 400

some works by their nature not evil 398

teaching of Scripture on 397

why these works are sins 403 f.

Works of the Law

include works of the regenerate 568 World

growing old 116

Scripture Text Index

(This index lists many Scripture passages quoted or referred to by Chemnitz

without indication of chapter and verse numbers.)

Old Testament

Genesis

1 — 567

1:27 — 324

3 — 311
3:15 — 205

5:3 — 324

6:3 — 49 f.

6:3-5 — 325

6:5 — 205, 326, 331, 332, 398, 432

8:21 — 325 f. , 331, 398, 432

9:6 — 202

11:6-9 — 196

11 — 15 — 483, 527

12:1-3 — 482

14 — 206

14:18 — 205

15 — 585

20:7 — 51

29:15 — 495

30:38-41 — 330

31:15 — 533

31:47 — 196 f.

38:17 — 598

39:4 — 496
41 — 586

42:23 — 197

44:16 — 476, 478

Exodus

2:6 — 331

4:1 — 584

19:8 — 639

20:13 — 415

20:18-19 — 639

20:19 — 645

21:2 — 495

23:7 — 477

24:7 — 52 f.

34:1 — 53

Leviticus

4 — 502

5 — 502

19:2 — 295

Numbers

11:5 — 495
15:39-40 — 629

18:27 — 533

21:14 — 53

22:28-30 — 422

23:19 — 498

Deuteronomy

5:27 — 639

5:28-29 — 639

5:32 — 630

5:32-33 — 629

6:9 — 55

11:20 — 55

12 — 479

12:8 — 629

12:32 — 630

13 — 383

17 — 69, 479

17:18 — 61

17:18-20 — 55, 56

18:15 — 639, 645

25:1 — 476

27:26 — 645

28:49 — 197

29:2-4 — 326, 433

30:6 — 434

30:16 — 568

31:10-13 — 55

31:16-21 — 332

31:25-26 — 55

31:26 — 56, 58

Joshua

1:7 — 224, 630

1:8 — 158

3:7 — 57

10.-13 — 53

15.15-16 — 53

24:1-3 — 482

24:2 — 50

24:26 — 58

Judges
11:2 — 203

13:5 — 331

17:6 — 61

1 Samuel

7:3 — 548

10:25 — 58

19:5 — 496

19:24 — 203

2 Samuel

12:13 — 597

15:4 — 476

19:19 — 532

24:24 — 495

1 Kings

2:31 — 496, 583

8:32 — 476, 478

22:22 — 48

2 Kings

14:14 — 598

21:13 — 372
22:8-13 — 60 f.

21:1 — 417

28:9 — 332

2 Chronicles

17:7-9 — 60

23:11 — 61

31:20-21 — 60

34:27 ff. — 434

Ezra

9 — 10 — 61

9:8 — 203

Job

5:1 — 205

9:20 — 475

13:18 — 475

14:4 — 330

27:5 — 475

32:2 — 475

32:3 — 475

40:8 — 475
Psalms

1:1 — 31

1:2 — 423

2:2 — 515

5:9 — 434

8:6-7 — 214

12:3-4 — 405

12:6 — 33

19 — 169

19:4 — 169

19:8 — 166

19:11 — 484

19:12 — 313, 327, 489

22:16 — 31

23:4 — 599

26:4 — 31

27:1 — 599

31 — 404, 475, 507 f.

31:1 — 599

31:5 — 511
32 — 346, 644

32:1 — 341

32:1-2 — 371 f. , 484, 649 f.

32:3-6 — 493

32:5-6 — 508

34:14 — 620

41:4 — 434

42:8 — 600

44:1 — 59

49:7-8 — 499

51:1 — 484, 506

51:1-2 — 372 f.

51:4 — 476

51:5 — 327, 330, 379, 382

51:10 — 433, 434

51:17 — 434

57 — 156

67 — 173

69:4 — 495 f.

71:16 — 582
72:13 — 471

87 — 155

88 — 602

88:8 — 600

89:31-32 — 621

90:8 — 322

93:4 — 600

95 — 156

102:18 — 126

103:4 — 507

103:10 — 497

106:30-31 — 534

109:3 — 496

109:7 — 401

114 — 506

116:11 — 507

119 — 210, 423, 433, 484

119:105 — 166

125.1 — 599

130:3 — 489, 509

132 — 52

132:15 — 203

143:1-2 — 484

143:2 — 474, 507, 576, 605

144:3 — 533

150:1 — 205

Proverbs

12:23 — 371

15:8 — 401

17:15 — 476 f. , 497, 500, 533

20:9 — 644

24:28 — 496

28:14 — 608

Ecclesiastes

7:20 — 489, 507

7:29 — 324

9:1 — 205

9:1-3 — 609

9:7 — 609

Isaiah
1:12 — 479, 629

1:13 — 401

1:22 — 47, 66, 553

5:23 — 476 f. , 497, 500, 533

7:16 — 331

8 — 186 f.

8:1 — 58

8:20 — 60

14:13-15 — 627

19 — 212

26:3 — 332

29:13 — 479, 629

30:8 — 58

40:3 — 554

43:9 — 476, 478

43:26 — 476, 478

48:4 — 432

53:5, 6, 11 — 503

53:11 — 473, 577

57:15 — 434
59:21 — 631

64:6 — 508, 660

66:3 — 401

66:16-20 — 201

Jeremiah

9:23-24 — 657 f.

13:23 — 432

14:14 — 47

15:13 — 496

15:17 — 31

17:9 — 313, 327, 398, 403, 432

23:6 — 503 f. , 529, 577, 640

31:31-34 — 524

31:33 — 44, 72, 73, 77, 79, 151, 490

31:33-34 — 166

45:1 — 58

51:60 — 58

Lamentations

3:52 — 496

Ezekiel
6:10 — 496

11:19 — 432, 434

13 — 371

13:9 — 58

14:23 — 496

18:7 — 371

18:20 — 499

20:7-8 — 51

Apocrypha

Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus)

1:18 — 471

1:22 — 471

2:17-18 — 554

5:5 — 205, 610

20:18-19 — 629

36 — 212

36:26 — 432, 434, 437, 445

40 — 212

Daniel

9:7-8 — 356
9:18 — 497, 527, 576

Joel

2:13 — 203

Jonah

3:8 — 371

16:15 — 206, 662

18:7 — 166

18:22 — 472

29:7 — 496

Micah

2 — 212

Habakkuk

2:2 — 58, 129

Zephaniah

2 — 212

3:14 f. — 196

Zechariah

1:3 — 547

Malachi

3:6 — 498
Wisdom of Solomon

4:11 — 192

1 Maccabees

1 — 65

NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew

1:20 — 379

1:21 — 475

2:1 — 287 f.

3:3 — 554

3:10 — 512, 620

5 — 603

5:12 — 654

5:15 — 276

5:17-18 — 498

5:17-20 — 646

5:20 — 480

5:21 — 229

5:21-43 — 64

5:21-48 — 646
6:1 ff. — 478

6:2 — 399, 478

6:12 — 360 f. , 363, 365, 374, 489, 506, 507, 510, 615, 649 f.

6:30 — 600

7:11 — 351, 365

7:15 — 31

7:17 — 418

7:18 — 401, 403, 479

7:19 — 620

9:2 — 409, 458, 547, 593, 597, 600

9:2-3 — 475

9:3 — 600 f.

9:13 — 202

9:18 — 579

9:27 ff. — 574

10:5 ff. — 632

10:27 — 276

10:42 — 616, 654

11:19 — 297

11:24 — 404
11:27 — 431

11:29 — 289

11:30 — 615

12:33 — 401

12:34 — 432

12:37 — 476

13:11 — 433

13:23 — 207

13:58 — 574

14 — 579

14:31 — 600

15:1-9 — 64, 270

15:8-9 — 479

15:9 — 629, 636

15:11 — 296 f.

15:14 — 636

15:23 — 64

16:11 — 636

16:17 — 431, 433

16:19 — 597
17:3 — 153

18:18 — 631

19:17 — 480, 534 f. , 548, 659

19:20 — 639

19:25-26 — 603

20:6 — 620

20:25 — 213

20:28 — 503, 656

22 — 157

23 — 65, 155

23:1-3 — 635

23:2-3 — 625 f. , 636

23:13-16 — 636

23:35 — 285, 288

24:15-16 — 156

24:23-26 — 383

24:24 — 172

25:14-30 — 538 f.

25:30 — 486

25:37-39 — 662
26:27 — 213

27:64 — 89

28:19 — 223

28:19-20 — 100, 409, 547 f.

28:20 — 632 f.

Mark

1:3 — 554

6:5 — 574

7:2-13 — 65

7:21-23 — 326

9:20 ff. — 574

9:24 — 579, 592

11:23 — 600

13:13 — 550

13:32 — 583

16:16 — 565

Luke

1:1 — 80, 103

1:1-4 — 89

1:3 — 276
1:6 — 262

1:16-17 — 434

1:17 — 554

1:35 — 379

1:48-49 — 383

1:68, 73 — 622

1:74-75 — 622

1:77 — 473, 497, 577

3:4 — 554

6:15 — 478

6:32-38 — 623

6:40 — 138

6:45 — 332

7:36-50 — 601

7:48-50 — 599 f.

7:50 — 593, 597

8:18 — 423

10:1 ff. — 632

10:16 — 31, 81, 631

10:25-28 — 568
10:25-37 — 639

10:26 — 480

10:27 — 323

10:28 — 480, 491, 534 f.

11:13 — 210

11:26 — 326

11:37-52 — 65

11:52 — 636

12:29 — 600

14:14 — 654

16:15 — 478

16:16-17 — 498

16:27-31 — 61

17:5 — 592

17:7-10 — 661

17:10 — 485 f. , 620

18:8 — 163

18:9-14 — 589

18:10-12 — 478

18:11-12 — 639
18:12 — 65

18:13-14 — 474

19:13 — 424

22:38 — 214

23:14 — 490

24:36-44 — 160

24:44 — 192

24:45 — 166, 433 f.

24:45-47 — 567

24:46 — 61

John

1 — 494

1:5 — 431 f.

1:11-12 — 573

1:12 — 76, 433, 526

1:17 — 494

1:23 — 631

1:29 — 251, 311

3:3-5 — 434

3:5 — 251, 253, 312, 458

3:14-15 — 574

3:15-16 — 485

3:16 — 569

3:17-18 — 474

3:18 — 485, 543

3:19 — 431

4:14 — 616

5:24 — 485, 543

5:39 — 72, 567

6 — 175, 475

6:40 — 543

6:44 — 432 f. , 441

6:45 — 423

6:53 — 574

6:57 — 657

6:63 — 599

6:66 — 175

8:19 — 601

8:32-36 — 448

8:34 — 354, 417, 432

8:36 — 449

8:37 — 444

8:44 — 47

8:47 — 423

10:1-18 — 25

10:27 — 152, 159, 164

10:27-28 — 606

10:28 — 595

11 — 96

11:25 — 657

11:43-44 — 286

13:10 — 253

13:27 — 417

13:34 — 620 f.

14:6 — 657

14:26 — 100, 205, 635

14:31 — 632

15:2 — 361

15:4 — 583

15:4-5 — 431 f.
15:5 — 436, 450

15:5 ff. — 660

16:8 — 401

16:12 — 94, 276

16:12-13 — 293 f.

17:3 — 657

17:8 — 573

17:17 — 394

20:21 — 632

20:23 — 597, 631

20:30 — 94

20:31 — 657

21:25 — 93

Acts

1:1-2 — 100

1:8 — 633

2:11 — 201

2:37-38 — 536

2:38 — 409, 458, 547

3.19 — 474
3:22-23 — 639

4:12 — 581, 657

5:3 — 417

8 — 198

8:14 — 124, 444

8:14-25 — 140 f.

8:22 — 601

8:27-38 — 102

8:28-33 — 198

8:31 — 208, 210

8:35-38 — 216

10:39-43 — 529

10:43 — 569, 574

12:19 — 490

13:22 — 484

13:37-39 — 529

13:38-39 — 474 f., 497

13:39 — 583

14:23 — 268

15:6-11 — 543
15:9 — 400

15:10 — 643

15:10-12 — 646

15:11 — 475

15:20 — 270

15:22 ff. — 133

15:22-29 — 634

15:23 — 224

15:23-29 — 83, 133

15:28 — 633

15:28-29 — 637

15:36-40 — 133

15:39 — 133

16:4 — 133, 224

16:14 — 433 f.

16:24 — 89

16:30-31 — 536

17 — 107

17:11 — 62, 72

17:11-12 — 210
18 — 112

19 — 116

20 — 115

20:7 — 269

20:23-25 — 122

20:27 — 128, 139, 276

20:35 — 98

21:5 — 138

23:1 — 486

24:8 — 490

24:16 — 486 f.

26:18 — 431

26:22 — 61

28:18 — 490

Romans

1 — 392

1:1-2 — 62

1:8 — 99

1:11-12 — 122

1:16 — 570
1:17 — 535. 543

1:18-32 — 479

1:21 — 326, 431

1:28 — 415

1:32 — 202

2 — 395

2:2 — 484

2:5 — 432, 434

2:6-7 — 568

2:8-9 — 499

2:13 — 480

2:14 — 415

2:15 — 74

2:15-16 — 404

2:16 — 617

2:25-39 — 212

2:26 — 533

3 — 153, 473 ff., 479, 505

3:2 — 55

3:4 — 480
3:8 — 620

3:10 — 488

3:10-18 — 325 f.

3:13-18 — 327

3:20 — 368, 480 f.

3:21 — 484, 583

3:21-22 — 568

3:21-28 — 493

3:22 — 551, 574

3:23 — 324, 509

3:24 — 475, 496, 503, 518, 529, 582

3:24-25 — 569

3:24-28 — 494

3:25 — 457, 500 3:27 — 491, 505, 583, 640, 658 f.

3:28 — 482, 583

3:30 — 574 f.

3:31 — 498

4 — 170, 482 f., 485, 494, 497, 529, 532 ff., 542, 575 f. , 658

4:1-8 — 528

4:2 — 203
4:3 — 508

4:3-6 — 474

4:4 — 494, 534, 568, 655 f.

4:5 — 483, 497, 503, 575

4:4-5 — 657

4:5 ff. — 569

4:5-6 — 583

4:5-14 — 656

4:6 — 484, 582 f., 657

4:7 — 341, 371, 462

4:7-8 — 649 f., 656

4:11 — 551, 597

4:12 — 127

4:13 — 646

4:13-16 — 594

4.14 — 521, 526, 568, 590, 656

4:15-16 — 491 f.

4.16 — 501, 594 f., 658

4:18 — 599

4:19-21 — 600
4:20 — 578

4:23-24 — 483, 503 f. , 577

4:24-25 — 529 f. , 533

5 — 347, 473 ff., 494

5:1 — 578

5:1-2 — 542, 595, 609

5:2 — 364, 530, 607, 658

5:8 — 495

5:9 — 503, 529

5:11 — 574

5:12 — 251, 311, 377

5:13 — 532

5:15-18 — 582 f.

5:17 — 574

5:18-21 — 577

5:19 — 324, 475, 503

5:21 — 504

6 — 338 f., 346 f., 366

6:2 — 623

6:3-4 — 529
6:4 — 357

6:4-6 — 622

6:6 — 327, 337, 434

6:12 — 346, 354 f.

6:12-14 — 521

6:13 — 482, 524, 540, 647

6:15 — 620

6:17 — 76, 440, 490

6:18 — 482, 540, 623

6:20 — 416

6:22 — 582

6:23 — 657

7 — 338 f., 343, 346 f. , 356 f. , 371, 493, 524, 661

7:1 — 644

7:6 — 400

7:7 — 348, 368, 370, 642

7:7-12 — 323

7:7-24 — 645

7:7-25 — 343

7:8 — 347
7:14 — 643

7:14-15 — 325

7:14-25 — 432

7:15 ff. — 337, 367

7:15-23 — 330

7:16 ff. — 340

7:17 — 347

7:17-21 — 325

7:18 — 325 ff. , 330, 431, 611, 644

7:18-23 — 489, 649

7:21 — 340, 611

7:22 — 76, 482, 490

7:22-23 — 354

7:23 — 325 f. , 340, 350, 352, 373

7:24 — 325, 340, 348

7:24-25 — 648

8 — 346, 473 ff.

8:1 — 338, 341 f., 356, 650

8:2 — 340, 366

8:3-4 — 502 f., 646

8:6 — 295

8:7 — 326 f. , 396, 431 f.

8:12 — 620

8:12-13 — 521, 550

8:13 — 337, 339 f. , 346, 367, 621

8:14 — 623

8:16 — 598, 603

8:18 — 662

8:24-25 — 598

8:26 — 474, 530

8:28-35 — 606

8:30 — 606

8:31-39 — 596

8:32 — 504

8:33 — 473, 509

8:33-34 — 609, 656 f.

8:33-38 — 599

8:34 — 529

8:35-39 — 607

8:38 — 596
8:38-39 — 356

9:20 — 393

9:30-32 — 574

9:31 — 589

9:31-32 — 575, 591

10 — 490

10:3 — 415, 487, 583

10:3-4 — 577

10:4 — 491, 499, 503 f., 528, 575, 576, 581, 640

10:5 — 535, 568

10:6 — 551

10:10 — 440

10:11-17 — 567

10:13 — 478

10:13-17 — 392

10:15 — 569

10:17 — 153

11:6 — 203, 459 f., 494, 526, 549, 582, 656

11:17 ff. — 401, 431 11:20 — 608

11:22 — 607, 608

11:29 — 606

11:33 — 393

12 — 323, 325

12:2 — 398, 400 f. , 620, 630

13:8 — 620

13:8-10 — 630

13:12 — 620

14 — 405

14:1-4 — 579

14:11 — 201

14:14 — 579

14:17 — 578

14:23 — 401, 403 f. , 418, 479, 600

15:4 — 129

15:14-15 — 122

15:15 — 123

15:24 — 103

1 Corinthians

1:2 — 117

1:8 — 607
1:10-12 — 117

1:18 — 118

1:20 — 431

1:21 — 47, 394, 431

1:23 — 396

1:28-29 — 640

1:30 — 311, 491, 503 f., 577, 658

1:30-31 — 505

1:31 — 659

2:2 — 118

2:6 — 280, 648

2:7-8 — 525

2:12 — 598

2:14 — 47, 166, 326 f., 396, 43 If., 444

2:14-15 — 208

2:15 — 121, 210

2:16 — 594

3 — 134

3:7 — 117

3:10 — 118
3:11 — 117

4:1 — 206

4:3 — 482

4:3-4 — 474

4:4 — 344, 486 f., 527, 576, 591, 593, 608, 645, 648

4.4-5 — 489

4:7 — 432, 436, 662

4:17 — 119

5 — 268

5:6-8 — 361

5:7 — 337

5:12 — 405

6:9-10 — 610

6:11 — 361, 472, 623

6:15-20 — 634

6:19-20 — 661

7:2 — 213

7:9 — 287, 295

7:28 — 287

7:35 — 637
7:36 — 421

8:8 — 297

9:3-12 — 631

9:24-27 — 615

10:5 — 572

10:12 — 608

10:25 — 635

11:3-16 — 120

11:4 — 270

11:5-10 — 269

11:23 — 223 f.

11:23-25 — 118

11:24-25 — 597

11:27-29 — 268

11:34 — 119

12:3 — 433

12:9-10 — 208

12:10 — 566

12:11 — 209

13:1 — 130
13:9 — 123

13:12 — 611

14 — 134, 269

14:19 — 200

14:29-30 — 210

14:37-38 — 121

15:1-3 — 223

15:1-10 — 487

15:13 — 118

15:17 — 529 f.

15:22 — 377

15:50 — 398

15:54 — 364

15:55-56 — 366

16:1 — 120

16:2 — 269

16:8 — 116

16:19 — 116

2 Corinthians

1 — 120
1:13 — 121, 123

1:20 — 572 f.

1:22 — 597

2:5 — 123

3 — 54

3:3 — 72, 73, 77, 151

3:5 — 326, 431, 433, 437, 662

3:7-8 — 570

3:8 — 599

3:18 — 324

4 — 338

4:3-4 — 166, 208, 417

4:6 — 432 f.

4:16 — 364, 398, 434

4:17 — 616f.

5:10 — 603

5:15 — 620, 622

5:17 — 623

5:18-19 — 570

5:19 — 497, 583

5:19-20 — 633

5:20 — 100, 472, 631

5:21 — 347, 502 f.

6:1 — 438, 444

6:3 — 623

6.14 — 364

7:7 — 361

7:11 — 206

9:9-10 — 540

10 — 120

10:5 — 396

10:11 — 121

10:13 — 169

11:7 — 496

11:23-27 — 103

12:2-4 — 129

12:11-13 — 120

13 — 120

13:2 — 121

13:3 — 100, 631

13:5 — 595 f.

13:7 — 390

Galatians

1 — 103

1:8 — 152 f.

1:8-9 — 125 f. 151 f. , 159, 164, 633

2 — 103

2:9 — 117

2:14-18 — 634

2:16 — 475, 490, 551, 583 f.

2:21 — 488

3 — 490, 554 f.

3:2 — 487

3:5 — 599

3:10 — 480 f. , 488 f., 491 ff. , 591, 650

3:11 — 583

3:11-14 — 535 f.

3:12 — 535, 568

3:13 — 502

3:14 — 574
3:18 — 582

3:22 — 574

3:27 — 311, 504, 597

4:4-5 — 409, 457, 499, 502, 526, 645, 647

4:6 — 598

4:9 — 579

4:10 — 296

4:19 — 126

5 — 338, 646

5:1 — 638

5:2-4 — 526

5:4 — 488, 491, 521, 591, 628, 656

5:6 — 459, 548, 580 f.

5:9 — 126

5:13-16 — 521

5:14 — 630

5:17 — 330, 367

5:19-21 — 610

5:21 — 609, 621

5:22 — 400, 527, 660

5:22-23 — 482

5:24 — 325, 327, 337,

5:25 — 622

6:9 — 654

6:14 — 505

6:16 — 126, 169 f.

Ephesians

1 — 495

1:4 — 606

1:13 — 597

1:13-14 — 128, 599

1:15-19 — 433

1:16-20 — 440

1:17-18 — 210

1:18 — 598

2:1-5 — 324, 431, 434

2:2 — 326, 417

2:3 — 325 f. , 327, 331, 377

2:4 — 495

2:5 — 475
2:8 — 433, 582 f.

2:8-9 — 583, 656, 658

2:10 — 400, 433 f. , 620, 622, 630

2:12 — 479

2:17 — 128

2:20 — 128, 164

3:2-8 — 128

3:3-4 — 127 f.

3:12 — 578

3:16-17 — 210

3:17 — 503

4 — 325

4:1 — 623

4:2-16 — 131

4:11-14 — 208

4:17 — 434

4:17-18 — 398

4:17-32 — 323

4:18 — 325 f.

4:19 — 415
4:22 — 340

4:22-24 — 357, 361 367, 620

4:23-24 — 434

4:24 — 540

4:30 — 597, 622

5 — 660

5:1 — 623

5:5 — 592

5:5-7 — 610

5:8 — 326, 431, 623

5:11 — 623

5:15 — 434

5:26 — 570

5:26-27 — 364 f.

5:32 — 206

6:8 — 654

6:13 — 206

Philippians

1:6 — 433, 436, 438, 607

1:9-11 — 210
1:27 — 623

2:12 — 608

2:13 — 433, 441, 662

3 — 542 f.

3:1 — 90, 131

3:4-7 — 486

3:6 — 415

3:7-8 — 486

3:8-9 — 505

3:9 — 551, 583

3:12 — 579, 595, 611, 644

3:12-15 — 506

3:15 — 648

3:16 — 131, 169

4 — 346 f.

4:9 — 131

4:8-9 — 132

Colossians

1:9-10 — 210, 433

1:10 — 623
1.12-14 — 457

1:13-14 — 469

2:1-5 — 135

2:1-8 — 132

2:2 — 577

2:6-7 — 574

2:8 — 275, 396

2:11 ff. — 337

2:13 — 431

2:14 — 474

2:16-23 — 634, 638

2:18 — 398

2:23 — 629 f.

3 — 325, 338

3:4 — 364

3:5 — 325, 340

3:5-6 — 610

3:5-25 — 323

3:6 — 621

3:9 — 337
3:9-10 — 357, 361, 367, 398

3:13 — 623

3:16 — 133

4:10 — 133

1 Thessalonians

2:13 — 631

3:10 — 107

4:3 — 620

4:6 — 621

4:7 — 620, 622

4:8 — 623

5:20-21 — 210

5:21 — 31

2 Thessalonians

1:6-7 — 654

2 — 142, 152

2:1-2 — 107 f.

2:2 — 119, 142, 275

2:2-3 — 383

2:3-4 — 34, 627

2:4 — 189

2:13-15 — 109 f.

2:15 — 91, 139

3 — 142

3:6 — 224

3:6-8 — 268

3:8 — 496

3:17 — 176

1 Timothy

1:3-4 — 112 f.

1:5 — 400, 630

1:15 — 113

1:18 — 238

1:19 — 621, 623

1:19-20 — 566, 621

2:5 — 508 f.

2:6 — 503, 656

3 — 119

3:2 — 294

3:14-15 — 112
4:8 — 654

4:9 — 113

5:4 — 482

5:8 — 621, 623

6:1 — 623

6:4 — 467

6:11 — 137

6:20 — 233

2 Timothy

1:6 — 424

1:7-9 — 606

1:9 — 494 f. , 582 f., 656

1:12 — 596, 602

1:13 — 134

2:2 — 135

2:19 — 606

2:26 — 417

3:14 — 135 ff.

3:14-17 — 135

3:16 — 139, 176

3:16-17 — 630

4:7-8 — 616

4:8 — 607

4:16 — 532

Titus

1:2 — 480

1:5 — 115

1:6 — 294

1:13 — 139

1:15 — 398, 401

2:8 — 623

2:10 — 623

2:12 — 615

2:14 — 620, 622

2:15 — 115

3:4 — 495

3:5 — 337, 434, 537, 582 f.

3:5-6 — 364, 656

3:8 — 115

3:13-14 — 137
Hebrews

1:3 — 362

2:1 — 134

2:9 — 495

3:6 — 595

3.14 — 607

4:2 — 565

4:16 — 495

5 — 134

5:8 — 615

6 — 134

6:1-2 — 102

6:10 — 616, 654

6:17-18 — 594

6:19 — 595

7:25 — 530

7:26 — 377

8:8-12 — 73

9:14 — 400

9:19 — 53
9:28 — 206, 365 f.

10:4 — 583

10:16-17 — 567

10:22-23 — 595

10:35 — 616

10:36 — 572

11 — 540, 561 f., 571 f.

11:6 — 401, 409, 458, 547

11:8-10 — 483

11:26 — 616

11:29 — 572

12:1 — 325, 346

12:21 — 639

13:4 — 213

13:9 — 134

13:16 — 206, 662

13:17 — 631

13:22 — 134

James

1:6-8 — 600
1:13-15 — 418

1:15 — 339, 345 f.

1:17 — 433

1:21 — 444

2:10 — 370, 481, 488 f., 568, 650, 662

2:14-18 — 581

2:17 — 548, 566, 621

2:18 — 539

2:19 — 561

2:21-24 — 539

2:24 — 538 f.

3:2 — 658

3:15 — 398

5:15 — 206

1 Peter

1:9 — 461

1:10-12 — 140

1:13 — 595

1:14-17 — 622

1:16-18 — 66
1:17 — 608

1:25 — 59

2:5 — 400

2:12 — 623

2:21 — 623

2:24 — 365 f. , 620, 622

3:1-2 — 623

3:16 — 623

3:19-20 — 285 f.

3:21 — 597

4:1 — 31

4:11 — 623

5:8-9 — 358

5:12 — 140

2 Peter

1:8 — 620

1:9 — 621

1:10 — 615

1:12 — 141

1:12-15 — 141 ff.

1:19 — 166

1:20 — 208

1:21 — 176

2:1-3 — 141 f., 275

2:5 — 50

2:20-22 — 326

3:3 — 142

3:16 — 208, 610

1 John

1:1-4 — 144

1:7-9 — 362

1:8 — 325, 365, 372 f., 489, 493, 497, 507, 521

1:8-10 — 497, 644

2:1 — 474, 506, 530

2:1-2 — 497, 656

2:2 — 409, 497, 499

2:4 — 325

2:6 — 623

2:7 — 144

2:12-14 — 145
2:24 — 144

2:26-27 — 145

2:29 — 524, 540

3:2 — 607

3:2-3 — 622

3:4 — 369, 649

3:6-14 — 623

3:7 — 482

3:14 — 474, 595

3:22 — 482

4:1 — 31, 145, 632

4:10-11 — 524

4:11 — 620, 622

4:20 — 621

4:21 — 621

5:3 — 615, 647

5:10 — 594, 598

5:11-12 — 657

5:13 — 145, 203, 595, 607

5:17 — 369
2 John

10 — 632

12 — 147

3 John

13 — 147

Jude

3-4 — 146 f.

17 — 147

23 — 361

Revelation

1:10 — 269

2:2 — 92

2:20 — 92

4:10-11 — 662

9:4 — 583

10:4 — 146

17:1 ff. — 205

21:6 — 496

21:27 — 583

22:11 — 472
22:18-19 — 146
Document Outline
Foreword
Translator’s Preface
Biographical Sketch of Martin Chemnitz
Preface
F IRST T OPIC CONCERNING THE SACRED SCRIPTURES
Section I Concerning Holy Scripture
Section II Concerning the Origin, Reason for, and Use of, New
Testament Scripture
Section III Concerning the Similarity and Affinity of the Traditions of
the Papalists with Those of the Pharisees and of the Talmud
Section IV Concerning the New Testament Scripture
Article I Concerning the Writings of the Evangelists
Article II Concerning the Writings and Epistles of the Apostles
Section V Testimonies of the Ancient Church Concerning the
Scriptures
Section VI Concerning the Canonical Books, or the Canonical
Scripture
Section VII Concerning the Version, or Translation, of Scripture into
Other Languages
Section VIII Concerning the Interpretation of the Scripture
S ECOND T OPIC CONCERNING TRADITIONS
Section I The First Kind of Traditions
Section II The Second Kind of Traditions
Section III The Third Kind of Traditions
Section IV The Fourth Kind of Traditions
Section V The Fifth Kind of Traditions
Section VI The Sixth Kind of Traditions
Section VII The Seventh Kind of Traditions
Section VIII The Eighth Kind of Traditions
T HIRD T OPIC CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN
Section I The Opinion of the Papalists Concerning Original Sin
Section II The Teaching of Scripture About Original Sin
Section III The Arguments of the Opponent
 F OURTH T OPIC CONCERNING THE REMNANTS OF
ORIGINAL SIN AFTER BAPTISM; OR CONCERNING EVIL
DESIRE (CONCUPISCENCE) WHICH REMAINS IN THE
BAPTIZED, OR REGENERATE, IN THIS LIFE
Section I The Point at Issue and the Bases
Section II The Council of Trent on Concupiscence
Section III Concerning the Word “Sin”
Section IV The Understanding of Concupiscence on the Part of the
Ancients
Section V Arguments of the Papalists
F IFTH T OPIC WHETHER THE BLESSED VIRGIN WAS
CONCEIVED WITHOUT ORIGINAL SIN
S IXTH T OPIC CONCERNING THE WORKS OF
UNBELIEVERS, OR OF THE UNREGENERATE
Section I The Opinion of Andrada About the Works of Unbelievers
Section II The Statements of Scripture Concerning the Works of
Unbelievers
Section III Arguments of the Opponents
S EVENTH T OPIC CONCERNING FREE WILL
Section I Various Related Questions Concerning Free Will
Article II The Chief Point at Issue in the Controversy Concerning Free
Will
Section II The Opinion of the Council of Trent Concerning Free Will,
According to the Interpretation of Andrada
Section III The Teaching of Scripture Concerning Free Will
Section IV Augustine’s Teaching Concerning Free Will, and How
Andrada Distorts It
Section V How Deceitfully the Tridentine Decrees Concerning Free
Will Are Fashioned
E IGHTH T OPIC CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION
Section I
Article I The True Issue in the Topic Concerning Justification
Article II Concerning the Term “Justification”
Article III From Which Things Scripture Takes Away the Justification
of Man to Life Eternal
Article IV How Scripture Teaches that a Man Is Justified Before God
to Life Eternal
Article V The Term “Grace”
Article VI The Adverb “Gratis”
Article VII What That Righteousness Is Which We Plead Against the
Judgment of God in Justification
Section II The Testimonies of the Ancients Concerning Justification
Section III The Teaching of the Council of Trent Concerning
Justification
Section IV The Arguments of Andrada
Section V Concerning the Growth of Justification After It Has Been
Received
N INTH T OPIC CONCERNING FAITH
Section I Concerning Preparation for Justification
Section II What Truly and Properly Justifying Faith Is, and in What
Sense Scripture Wants to Have It Understood When It Declares that
the Ungodly Is Justified by Faith
Section III Whether the True Justifying Faith Is Confidence or
Uncertainty with Respect to the Remission of Sins
T ENTH T OPIC CONCERNING GOOD WORKS
Whether Good Works Are to Be Done
The Second Question :
What the Good Works Arc in Which God Wants the
Regenerate to Practice Obedience
Whether the Good Works of the Regenerate in This Life Are
So Perfect that They Fully, Abundantly, and Perfectly Satisfy
the Divine Law
Concerning the Rewards and Merits of Good Works
The First Question :
The Third Question :
The Fourth Question :
Subject Index
Scripture Text Index