§ 1. The Gospel was handed down to us by Christ, the Son of God; hence he who is also Redeemer is the author of the new law which we call evangelical. Of him Isaiah 33:22 says: “The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he himself will save us.”
§ 2. Moral, sacramental, and faith-related precepts are contained in that law. Christ expounded the moral precepts more perfectly, and handed down wholly new sacramental precepts after the old ones had been abolished. He gave more explicit precepts of faith, for otherwise precepts concerning what must be believed were also given to the Jews and to the fathers before the Flood.
§ 3. Those precepts must be observed by us altogether, for all the precepts bind us, not only those of faith.
§ 4. In this matter there are heresies and errors which are most pernicious not only against piety but also in the state and in politics.
For first, the sectarians profess that the moral law can by no means be observed. Second, they profess that faith alone is accepted by God in place of the observance of all the precepts, as some say; or that faith alone is imputed for justice. They understand faith, of course, as confidence in justice and salvation. Third, they profess that no eternal penalties threaten believers for any commandment violated in any manner whatsoever.
Fourth, they profess that Christ is therefore not a legislator but only the promiser and giver of grace. Hence arose the Antinomians, who scorn every law, and the Müntzerians, who, employing Lutheran principles, rejected not only every law but even the magistracy. At the beginning I disputed against those who judge consciences to be altogether secure from obligation to human laws; I showed that they are pernicious to the state. Now these men indeed acknowledge that they sin by violating laws, but say that they do not fear punishment, because they have been freed from every active and passive curse; for God is neither angry with them nor punishes them, but in every crime fully justifies and beatifies them.
It belongs to theologians to dispute against their impiety; I shall discuss the disturbance of the state which this pestiferous sect contrives under the pretext of piety and Christian liberty.
But this must be noted especially: the very doctors of immeasurable license do not dare to assert in words the faith which they teach. For the Lutherans, although they gave the Antinomians their beginnings, pretend that they refute them; and the Calvinists pretend that they refute the Libertines, from whom they differ only in words. And indeed, those who profess to detest the Antinomians teach as follows.
§ 5. The Synod of Mansfeld: “The true understanding of the abrogation of the law consists in this: that at the beginning we know that the law in general has been removed by Christ in this manner, so that it cannot harm the sons of God by its curse, condemnation, and accusation, as is said in Galatians 3: ‘Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, himself having been made a curse for us.’ This was done, namely, according to his office, concerning which the Holy Spirit had long before prophesied through Moses: ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs upon the tree.’ And from this Paul reasons that we who have been redeemed through Christ are now under grace and not under the law, Romans 6.”
Their error is that they say that, whatever they commit against God and their neighbor—even acts of arson, murders, and treasons—they are not only not cursed or condemned by God, but are not even accused. If this is to be taught concerning the law of God and natural law, how much more is the same thing to be taught concerning a political law carried about an indifferent matter? For how will a decree of the senate or an edict of the prince concerning the making of an inventory of a testament bind, if the laws of the eternal Emperor do not bind to accusation, curse, and punishment?
Whatever they seem to teach rightly concerning the law comes down entirely to this: they say that it must be observed, but that no punishment is to be feared from its violation. Finally, they say that the law cannot be observed.
From this foundation the Antinomians argue as follows.
Can we observe the Decalogue or moral law with respect to obedience? The Mansfeldians answer: we can, although in great weakness and imperfection. Nevertheless, things of this kind do not bring condemnation upon us, Romans 8, provided that we remain in Christ. Thus they speak more mildly, but they are condemned by others because they say that every good work is by its nature a mortal sin. But insofar as it is by nature a mortal sin, God’s precept is not observed.
Yet they imagine for themselves a great distinction between the just and the impious; for they teach that the law was established for the unjust, but by no means for the just: “Because, as we said before, the law has not been removed for everyone, but only for those who are under grace and acknowledge and embrace the benefits of Christ through faith; indeed, it has been abrogated for the just, as Paul says in 1 Timothy 1. It follows from this that the unjust and those not yet converted, who do not acknowledge and apprehend the benefits of Christ through faith and who otherwise lead an evil and dishonorable life, are still under the law, and this during the whole time of their impiety, so that the law continually exercises its office upon them by showing sin, the wrath of God, and the consequent penalties; next also by showing our weakness and impossibility in observing the divine law for obtaining justice; and furthermore by terrifying, accusing, condemning, and mortifying, so that the unjust themselves feel and experience the tyranny and dominion of the law, its curse and condemnation. This is signified in 1 Timothy 1: ‘The law is given to the unjust, the disobedient, the impious, sinners, the irreverent, and the violent’; and against sinners of this kind the law, as pedagogue, still takes punitive action, Galatians 3; and thus the law is our pedagogue until Christ.”
They enumerate the following as the errors and false dogmas of the Antinomians.
The First Error
§ 6. “The law is not worthy to be called the word of God.”
This indeed belongs to the Manichaeans, who proclaimed an evil God as the author of the law, against whom are the disputations of the holy Fathers, especially Augustine. For if that law, “You shall not kill,” and so forth, is not worthy to be called the word of God, then idols, blasphemies, parricides, adulteries, and robberies are not prohibited by the word of God. Who, therefore, prohibits them, if so holy a law is unworthy of its author? How will human law possess reverence if there is no divine law from which it is derived? The Mansfeldians refute that error when they exclaim: “It is horrible to hear that the law is unworthy to be called the word of God. For Scripture says in Exodus 32 that God wrote the law or Decalogue with his own finger; why, therefore, shall we not call it the word of God?
“In Deuteronomy 8 the Lord says that he will place his words in the mouth of the prophet, so that he may speak whatever he has commanded him. And so thereafter in all the prophets the law is called the law of the Lord, which fact is an argument that the law is truly the word of God. If it is truly the word of God, it certainly deserves also to be so called. But what Paul writes concerning the dignity of the law is to be sought from 2 Corinthians 3, which dignity of the law the Antinomians plainly scorn and deride. Augustine, in book 2 of Questions on Moses, question 166: ‘Hence the law is called the work of God, because he himself ordained it; God wrote this law.’ Likewise, in tractate 3 on John: ‘He who gave the law also gave grace.’”
Yet that struggle is one of words. For a penalty is added to those laws, so that the soul of whoever transgresses them should be destroyed from his people; they deny that this pertains to them. But this too is the law of God: “Whoever kills a human being shall surely die.” The sectarians hold otherwise: although we have killed thousands upon thousands, nevertheless we shall not die, because we are free from the law. The law is dead to us—the law, I say, which forbids killing, is dead to us.
The Second and Third Errors
§ 7. “If you are a prostitute, if an adulterer, or any other sinner whatsoever, only believe, and you are on the way of salvation.”
“When you are entirely fixed in the midst of sin, only believe, and you are in the midst of salvation.”
The Mansfeldians profess that they detest these errors.
“These two errors,” they say, “open the widest window to manifest crimes and shameful deeds, and despoil repentance of a certain great part of itself—namely, the good resolution to amend one’s life.”
Nevertheless, the shameless obstinacy of others remains: that in the midst of sins they are not only just by imputation, but also know this concerning themselves with certainty; and that David retained justice in adultery and homicide. What will citizens imbued with this opinion not dare? They deny that they are guilty of an offense against divine majesty; how will they revere human majesty? Deuteronomy 13: “If you hear in one of the cities which the Lord has given you to dwell in, persons saying, ‘Let us go and serve alien gods,’ killing you shall kill all who are in that city, and you shall burn it with fire, and it shall be without habitation forever, nor shall it be rebuilt.” What if someone believes himself just in this matter and denies that the penal law pertains to him?
What if the son of Clytemnestra, or Nero, should come to judgment,
For whose punishment there should not have been prepared one ape, nor one serpent, nor one sack?
Would he not, if he lived in our age, commit some crime greater than parricide, proclaim himself most just in the midst of the crime, and say that by the new law he was free from the curse of the law? The Argives, therefore, were excessively scrupulous; of them the parricide’s sister complains:
ἔδοξε δ’ Ἄργει τῷδε μήθ’ ἡμᾶς στέγαις μητροκτονοῦντας· κυρία δ’ ἥδ’ ἡμέρα, ἐν ᾗ διοίσει ψῆφον Ἀργείων πόλις, ἢ χρὴ θανεῖν νὼ λευσίμῳ πετρώματι, ἢ φάσγανον θήξαντ’ ἐπ’ αὐχένος βαλεῖν.
For it seemed good to the Argives not even to receive us matricides under a roof; but this is the decisive day on which the city of the Argives will deliver its judgment: for either we must die by a white stone, or the neck must be cut off with a sharpened sword.
But according to the prescription of the new Gospel, they are just, holy, and innocent if they believe themselves to be such. God is not angry with them, because they believe themselves to be sons; he does not punish them, because he does not impute sin. They say that they are on the way to heaven, on the way of salvation.
How much more will they ruin all civil laws? For why should solemnities and formulas bind those who trample upon all God’s commands without fraud? Will those who judge themselves fully just and truly beatified delay for the order and procedure of the praetor if they fill the tribunal with the praetor’s blood? Orestes, therefore, would be a fiducialist and would fear no vengeance from God.
The Fourth Error
§ 8. “The Decalogue pertains to the curia, not to the pulpit.”
What do they mean by these words? Evidently, that when conscience is at issue, when justice, eternal life, friendship, and spiritual conversation are at issue, no mention of the Decalogue is to be made. Indeed, not even the law of God is to be expounded to the people. For the Decalogue does not
pertain to the preacher.
Therefore, in their judgment, knowledge or observance of the Decalogue does not pertain to living well or to salvation; much less, therefore, does observance of civil laws. But how does it pertain to the curia if it does not pertain to the pulpit?
The curia indeed punishes crimes and guards the tablets of the commandments; but why does the curia do this, when God is imagined to will that human beings not even be admonished concerning this matter? Next, has a command been given to the curia—that is, to the magistrate—that it should wish to guard the Decalogue? This, then, is a command of God. Is it therefore not to be spoken to them in an address? From where, then, will the magistrate learn it?
The Mansfeldians answer rightly, but by no means consistently with their opinion: “It is true that the Decalogue pertains in part to the court and the curia. For the civil magistrate ought to be the guardian of both tables of the law. Therefore in Deuteronomy 17 God commands that kings, sitting upon the throne or at the helm of the state, take care that a copy of the book of divine law be written out for them, so that they themselves may both perform the precepts of the Lord on their own part and take care that they are performed among the subjects of their kingdoms. Likewise, in Romans 13 it is written: ‘The magistrate is also the minister of God for your benefit; but if you do evil, you will fear him, for he does not bear the sword in vain.’ But that the Decalogue is therefore also to be removed from preaching is intolerable, for both spiritual and political magistrates ought to be guardians and promoters of the Decalogue. Likewise, if doctors of the word ought not to treat the Decalogue before the congregation, how would they lead human beings to acknowledgment of sins? How would they deter them from sins by fear of God’s wrath and punishments? How would they invite them to repentance and sorrows of the soul concerning sin? They would necessarily omit the principal part in the preaching of repentance.
“Finally, what would become of conversion? How could God render an account with us, according to the parable in Matthew 18, concerning the debt arising from violation of the divine will, if preaching of the law were to be banished from the churches? Finally, if preaching of the Decalogue perishes in the Church, at the same time the preaching of repentance falls, all discipline perishes, and no one is converted to salvation through the ordinary means.”
By this answer they condemn themselves. For by law they condemn the magistrate and absolve the subjects. For I ask whether the magistrate himself ought to fear the penalty of an offense if he neither reads God’s laws, nor takes care that they are observed, nor bears the sword for vengeance upon evildoers. For if he too, without offense against God, is not compelled by a most hateful work to offend his subjects; if the preacher ought not to admonish him concerning the guardianship of the laws as though a penalty were prepared for the negligent, then the law does not even pertain to the curia.
The Fifth Error
§ 9. “All those who have dealings with Moses proceed by the direct road to the Devil—indeed, to an evil end with Moses.”
The Mansfeldians answer: “All those who have dealings with Moses or the law in such a way that through it they wish to become just—that is, accepted before God—do indeed all proceed by the direct road to hell, nor does any one of them attain the blessedness of eternal life. For it is written in Romans 3 that by the works of the law no flesh is justified before God; and in John 3 eternal life is promised to believers alone. In Romans 10 Paul says: ‘If you confess with your mouth that Jesus himself is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.’
“But what dealings they have with Moses or the law we handed down above, according to the agreement of Scripture, in the doctrine concerning the law: what remains for us in it and how far we can still use it. These do not proceed toward the Devil, nor are they condemned, but experience the great and ample fruit and usefulness of the divine law.
“Neither Moses nor the law itself ought to be sent to an evil end, but for those who do not live according to the laws and precepts of the Decalogue the matter very often comes to an evil end or to the rope. The Antinomians themselves provide the occasion for this evil when they counsel their people to scorn the law and the Ten Commandments of God without concern and to omit them at pleasure. By these outcries, I say, they drive many to the evil cross and the torments of various punishments.”
But this is an impious confirmation of the blasphemous paradox, repeating the error in milder words. First, because elsewhere they teach that not even the commandments observed with the grace of God contribute to salvation, since all are mortal sins—even the best works done in the best manner. Therefore the Antinomians stand upon the foundation of the Mansfeldians and conclude irrefragably: every work of divine and human law done in the best manner is a sin worthy of eternal death; therefore it must not be done by us, lest with Moses we be thrust down to hell.
Next, they interpret “works of the law” most perversely, since the Apostle is speaking about those which are done without grace. Finally, others add that they say the law is dead, not because they observe it through grace, but because, when violated, it cannot harm those who believe themselves just amid its defilement—even though someone
has broken the aged throat of his parent.
When he has believed himself to be just, he will raise pure hands to heaven. Nor will he wait for a judge who is inquiring about the right of eavesdrip, boundaries, and windows. Indeed, he will not even dread the tribunal of God.
The Sixth Error
§ 10. “Human beings are not to be prepared for the Gospel through the preaching of the law; but it is necessary that God do this, whose proper work it is.”
That reasoning is without the law of truth and right. For if God leads people through the preaching of the law, why does the preacher not also do so, exhorting in the place of God? But the Mansfeldians speak much more absurdly: “Nor is there any better preparation for the Gospel than the preaching of the law itself. For it terrifies, distresses, and wounds human beings, so that afterward they may experience the magnitude of evangelical consolation, joy, and salvation so much more pleasantly. For he also contemns the magnitude of aid who does not acknowledge the magnitude of the danger. Moreover, through the preaching of the law as preparation for the Gospel, nothing is taken away from God. For nevertheless true acknowledgment of sin, salutary acknowledgment of God’s wrath and punishments, right fears, true contrition, and sorrows must be given by God.”
For all this preaching falls among the jests of the Lutherans and Calvinists. Unbelievers are not terrified by those threats of the law, because they judge the shades of the underworld and the torments of the impious to be fables. Believers are not terrified because they are most certain that they are free from the curse, accusation, and condemnation of the law. Julius spoke contemptuously: “Will you proceed to cite laws to me while I am armed?”
Nero at last feared the punishments of the laws when, upon hearing the enemy’s cavalry, he said:
ἵππων ὠκυπόδων ἀμφὶ κτύπος οὔατα βάλλει.
The sound of swift-footed horses resounds about my ears.
Before that, as one greater than the laws, he used to sing this: “Let kings go by whatever road they please.” Yet even that impious man was terrified by the nocturnal specter of his murdered mother; but those who boast that they are just merely by believing, in their confidence violate the laws without fear, and will answer the magistrate with the freest indignation:
“We are not prepared for the Gospel and salvation even by the law of God; much less, therefore, by your law, which is neither from God nor concerns a matter which is good in itself, but concerns matters which can rightly be done otherwise.”
The Seventh Error
§ 11. “In the Gospel one ought not to treat of violation of the law, but of violation of the Son.”
An opinion unworthy of a human being, much less of a doctor. They do not think the Son of God is violated except by unbelief, although he is also violated by blasphemies, hatred, and contempt. Nevertheless, they do not lack a reason for so absurd a matter, drawn from the adversaries themselves. For if they are just by faith alone, if they are rendered unjust by no shameful deed except unbelief, what need is there to treat of things which can neither harm salvation nor promote it?
The Eighth Error
§ 12. “To hear the word of God and perceive it in the heart is the proper consequence of the Gospel.”
From this they concluded that it was enough to hear and perceive, even if they did not act, although the Lord condemns those who received the word in their heart but produced no fruit.
From this they reasoned further, according to the testimony of the Mansfeldians: “It is enough to hear and perceive; a work is not required. Accordingly, it is not a sin to be overthrown by a little prostitute.” What will the prince promise himself here concerning citizens of this kind? “We have heard the law and perceived it; it is not a sin if we act contrary to it.” In the morning hours they will wear away the thresholds of Socrates, in the afternoon those of Thaïs. Yet they learned all these things from Luther and the Lutherans, for those men teach that good works are not necessary for salvation. But if this is true, it is enough to hear and perceive the law—indeed, not even to hear it. For why should you batter the ears when there is no need of action? But so that it may appear where those preachers lead the citizens, I shall cite the things which the Mansfeldians assembled in their Synod:
“This proposition is papistic, devised by the pontiffs themselves and fashioned in this manner. For it is found nowhere in Scripture, nor is it readily found even in the books of the Fathers, especially with the understanding which the papists attach to it: that good works are partial efficient and meritorious causes of salvation. Even if this proposition is bent merely into another meaning by some gloss affixed to it, nevertheless this sense stands out above the others, which the context of the words represents. Nor do the papists, the first inventors of this proposition, permit a new meaning to be constructed for it contrary to the nature and proper meaning of their own words.
“The divine Luther attacked this proposition most sharply, as his books everywhere testify. For in the first German volume printed at Wittenberg he writes that this proposition, ‘Good works are necessary for salvation,’ confounds law and Gospel with such loss and detriment as human reason can neither comprehend nor understand. For through it the doctrine of grace is obscured, Christ is torn away with all his benefits, and the whole Gospel is overturned.
“In the same place he says: ‘It is a slippery and empty statement to pronounce thus: faith indeed ought not to rest upon works and merits, but nevertheless it is necessary to possess good works as necessary for salvation. This whole thing is nothing. For if they are necessary for salvation, salvation cannot come without them, and therefore we are not saved by faith alone. But this is false and dissents from Scripture.’ In the same place he writes that it was decreed in the Synod of Jerusalem that the works of the law are not necessary for salvation.
“In volume 4, page 550: ‘Unless three apostles had stood firm, the entire little assembly would have fallen back and decreed that the works of the law were necessary for salvation.’
“In volume 7, page 61: ‘Eighth, it must be carefully observed here and guarded with great zeal that faith alone, without any works, makes persons just, free, and saved.’
“Page 63: ‘From this it is clearly perceived how a Christian human being is free from all things and above all things, so that he has no need of works for justice and salvation, but faith supplies all things to him abundantly. And if he should be so insane as to hope to become just, free, saved, and a Christian through any good work, he loses faith with all its supports, like that dog which, when it carried a portion of meat in its mouth and gaped at the reflection in the water, lost both the meat and the reflection at the same time.’
“Page 65: ‘No work and no commandment is necessary for a Christian for salvation.’
“In the same place: ‘Although in this life a human being cannot be without works, nevertheless they are not necessary to him for justice and salvation.’
“Page 66: ‘Let a Christian human being be content with his faith, which is his life, justice, and salvation, and let him be persuaded that he requires nothing further for that matter than to believe that the matter truly stands so.’
“In a certain sermon on the Ascension published in the year 1523: ‘Beware that gloss or disguise of the philosophers or universities: “He who believes and has good works will be saved.” Christ does not speak thus, but only, “He who believes,” he says.’
“In the Household Sermons published at Nuremberg in the year 1545, page 41: ‘It falls to us to be saved only through the remission of sins.’
“In the Greater Postils, from Advent to Easter Sunday, page 102: ‘Christ saved us once in a twofold manner. First, he did all things whatsoever which it is necessary to do so that we may be saved; next, in baptism he communicated all his benefits to us.’
“The books of Luther are filled with these and similar passages, and we shall not commemorate more. But Luther cast down above all this proposition, ‘Good works are necessary for salvation,’ most forcefully in the disputation on the works of law and grace held at Wittenberg in 1537. In that disputation he altogether rejects the necessity of works for salvation and by no means wishes to tolerate it. If, therefore, anyone had intended to introduce this proposition again after Luther’s death and thus overthrow and rupture the peace and concord of the Church, these things ought at that time to have been disputed and decided with Luther himself.
“At other times also in our churches, throughout the whole time elapsed after Luther’s death, no one made mention of this pernicious proposition; rather, as something unaccustomed it was perpetually suppressed by silence. For everyone was very readily content with the doctrine of the Augsburg Confession: ‘It is necessary to act well’; and concerning this there was never any dispute.
“After Luther’s death this proposition emerged again,
and once its authors have been shown it is very easy to judge; for their disputations in favor of this proposition are extant. Although various causes are alleged by which the defenders of this dogma affirm that they were moved, nevertheless these are of no importance in comparison with that immeasurable loss and detriment to the Christian religion which follows from it. And if afterward they had wished to abstain from this dogma, as by God’s beneficence has occurred, it would have been preferable never to have brought it back into the light, and many disputes could have been avoided in this manner. The papistic justiciaries would not have been confirmed in their impious dogma concerning the necessity of good works for salvation, and the weaker Christians in our churches would not have been disturbed.”
§ 13. Experience has taught that the Antinomians were born from this; and we have as confessing culprits the adversaries of the Antinomians themselves. For since they could in no way avoid lawlessness and the confusion of all things if they condemned good works, many of the Lutherans themselves rejected such depraved teachings. The Mansfeldians narrate the matter thus in the controversy concerning good works:
“The following causes for restoring the proposition are brought forward: first, that the Antinomians manifestly teach that a human being, once regenerated, nevertheless retains grace and the Holy Spirit even if he rushes into sins against conscience, is an adulterer, drunkard, defrauder, or prodigal.
“Second, that there are said to have been some who jestingly and wittily declaimed that the salt of necessity had become putrid—or, as the proverb has greater charm in the vernacular language through the ambiguity of a word which signifies at one time necessity and at another seasoning: Das Muss ist versalzen.
“Fourth, that some were unwilling to bear the word ‘debt.’
“Fifth, that all human beings have long since been remiss, sluggish, and idle with respect to good works.
“Sixth, that some understood the particle ‘alone’ in such a way that it excludes not only the merit of good works but also their presence.”
Some of these causes are sufficiently honorable and suitable, and it is manifest that the Antinomians teach as has been stated; moreover, the idleness and languor of human beings with respect to good works is, alas, unknown to no one. The other causes are less known.
I now appeal to the conscience of all princes: whether they truly judge that a just and constant state governed by laws can be constituted from these human beings.
The Ninth Error
§ 14. “Peter did not understand Christian liberty; therefore he wished to observe the law by not eating unclean things.”
What wonder if the Antinomians say this, since their masters and the antagonists among the masters agree? For when they treat of good works, they say not only that human beings are saved without them, but also deny that they are a condition without which persons are not saved, page 208. Much less is Christ’s merit applied by good works. If, therefore, a magistrate cites Scripture, the ancestors, or any laws whatsoever, he will immediately hear: “You do not understand Christian liberty.”
The Tenth Error
§ 15. “Peter’s saying, ‘Make your vocation certain through good works,’ is useless.”
The Lutherans answer: “Nor does this saying from the first chapter of the second Epistle support the Antinomians who cry out about Peter’s ignorance, as if he had not sufficiently understood the doctrine of Christian liberty. For Peter’s exhortation that we make our vocation certain through good works sufficiently declares that he understood the rationale of evangelical liberty: that it is not similar to carnal liberty, nor is wickedness to be clothed with the appearance of liberty. Christian liberty is not then drawn toward the carnal if through good works we establish our vocation; that is, if by good works we testify that our vocation to the kingdom of Christ and eternal life is certain. For where evil works are exercised contrary to the will of God, there we cannot be certain concerning our vocation, but must doubt whether we have truly been called to the inheritance of the kingdom of Christ and eternal life. By weakening this certainty of vocation, because they neither care about evil works nor greatly demand good ones, the Antinomians sufficiently show that they possess no sound judgment concerning evangelical liberty. Next, this too is manifest from the immediately preceding errors: that the Antinomians are enemies of good works and provide human beings occasions, with a certain horrible security, to do whatever has pleased their mind. And although they do not dare openly to profess that an evil life is good, nevertheless they diminish sins, so that they say we can be freed from them at a slight moment, provided only that we believe, while in the meantime omitting the resolution to reform the course of our former life for the better.”
But the poet deservedly sings in response to them:
Let the straight man mock the club-footed, the white man the Ethiopian.
For in their reply they embrace no less impious a doctrine. For Peter commands that vocation be made certain through works; without works, therefore, it is uncertain. They deny that those who practice evil works contrary to God’s will are certain, although the Calvinists affirm this. Yet if those people are uncertain, all alike are uncertain; for all perform evil works, and they say that all their good works are mortal sins, while vocation is not rendered certain through mortal crimes. Therefore they make good works of less account than the Antinomians do, because they openly profess that a good life is evil. Indeed, they highly praise these propositions: “It is possible to be saved without good works. All who have been saved were saved without good works. Good works are not necessary for salvation; they do not preserve salvation; they are not a condition without which one is not saved; they are by their nature worthy of eternal death. Evil works are effaced by faith alone. If you have committed every shameful deed, as soon as you have believed that you are just through Christ, you are just.” What greater security can there be for the wicked? But do you expect a person to submit to human judgment when he thinks that by one assertion of the mind he has escaped all crimes and their punishments?
The Eleventh Error
§ 16. “Whenever a thought of this kind occurs to you—that in this or that manner a matter ought to be conducted in the Church so that human beings may be good, honorable, modest, holy, and chaste—you have already wandered from the Gospel.”
If these things are true, it is certainly preferable to return to Judaism, or indeed to profess any religion whatsoever; for who is certain in a religion in which no account is taken of uprightness and there is no shame at wicked deeds? What else would the Ephesians, the Sybarites, or the Cyrenians say? We read that they were the most corrupt of nations; yet they did not condemn the cultivators of virtues, although they hated and exterminated them. If, therefore, the prince, mindful of his office, acts so that the citizens become good, modest, holy, honorable, and chaste, he wanders from the Gospel. If a parent thinks in this way concerning the education of his children, he ceases to be evangelical; for in this respect the rationale of prince and father is the same. Οὐδὲν διαφέρει ἄρχων ἀγαθός, ἀγαθοῦ πατρός. A good prince differs in nothing from a good father. He will never be a good citizen who judges that a magistrate solicitous concerning the life of the citizens wanders from the Gospel. Finally,
since the state rules its citizens by both punishments and rewards, one who equally removes the causes of rewards and punishments cannot belong to the state.
Certainly, from even this single error there seems to me sufficient cause for all Germany to be dashed together in mutual conflicts, when the office committed by God to kings and princes—that they should be τῶν νόμων φύλακες, guardians of the laws—is assailed so shamelessly and insolently.