Apology of the Augsburg Confession | Page 8

the remission of sins, justification, and life eternal. Moreover,
in this discussion, by Law we designate the Ten Commandments,
wherever they are read in the Scriptures. Of the ceremonies and judicial
laws of Moses we say nothing at present.
Of these two parts the adversaries select the Law, because human
reason naturally understands, in some way, the Law (for it has the same
judgment divinely written in the mind); [the natural law agrees with the
law of Moses, or the Ten Commandments] and by the Law they seek
the remission of sins and justification. Now, the Decalog requires not
only outward civil works, which reason can in some way produce, but
it also requires other things placed far above reason, namely, truly to
fear God, truly to love God, truly to call upon God, truly to be
convinced that God hears us, and to expect the aid of God in death and
in all afflictions; finally, it requires obedience to God, in death and all
afflictions, so that we may not flee from these, or refuse them when
God imposes them.
Here the scholastics, having followed the philosophers, teach only a
righteousness of reason, namely, civil works, and fabricate besides that
without the Holy Ghost reason can love God above all things. For, as
long as the human mind is at ease, and does not feel the wrath or

judgment of God, it can imagine that it wishes to love God, that it
wishes to do good for God's sake. [But it is sheer hypocrisy. ] In this
manner they teach that men merit the remission of sins by doing what
is in them, i.e., if reason, grieving over sin, elicit an act of love to God,
or for God's sake be active in that which is good. And because this
opinion naturally flatters men, it has brought forth and multiplied in the
Church many services, monastic vows, abuses of the mass; and, with
this opinion the one has, in the course of time, devised this act of
worship and observances, the other that. And in order that they might
nourish and increase confidence in such works, they have affirmed that
God necessarily gives grace to one thus working, by the necessity not
of constraint, but of immutability [not that He is constrained, but that
this is the order which God will not transgress or alter].
In this opinion there are many great and pernicious errors, which it
would be tedious to enumerate. Let the discreet reader think only of
this: If this be Christian righteousness, what difference is there between
philosophy and the doctrine of Christ? If we merit the remission of sins
by these elicit acts [that spring from our mind], of what benefit is Christ?
If we can be justified by reason and the works of reason, wherefore is
there need of Christ or regeneration [as Peter declares, 1 Pet. 1, 18 ff.]?
And from these opinions the matter has now come to such a pass that
many ridicule us because we teach that an other than the philosophic
righteousness must be sought after. [Alas! it has come to this, that even
great theologians at Louvain, Paris, etc., have known nothing of any
other godliness or righteousness (although every letter and syllable in
Paul teaches otherwise) than the godliness which philosophers teach.
And although we ought to regard this as a strange teaching, and ought
to ridicule it, they rather ridicule us, yea, make a jest of Paul himself.]
We have heard that some, after setting aside the Gospel, have, instead
of a sermon, explained the ethics of Aristotle. [I myself have heard a
great preacher who did not mention Christ and the Gospel, and
preached the ethics of Aristotle. Is this not a childish, foolish way to
preach to Christians?] Nor did such men err if those things are true
which the adversaries defend [if the doctrine of the adversaries be true,
the Ethics is a precious book of sermons, and a fine new Bible]. For
Aristotle wrote concerning civil morals so learnedly that nothing
further concerning this need be demanded. We see books extant in

which certain sayings of Christ are compared with the sayings of
Socrates, Zeno, and others, as though Christ had come for the purpose
of delivering certain laws through which we might merit the remission
of sins, as though we did not receive this gratuitously, because of His
merits. Therefore, if we here receive the doctrine of the adversaries,
that by the works of reason we merit the remission of sins and
justification, there will be no difference between philosophic, or
certainly pharisaic, and Christian righteousness.
Although the adversaries, not to pass by Christ altogether, require a
knowledge of the history concerning Christ, and ascribe to Him that it
is His merit that