Monday, July 11, 2016

Commentary on Martin Luther's Freedom of a Christian

Below I have printed out the entire text of Luther's treatise, often called The Freedom of a Christian.  The treatise was published in November of 1520, the same year that Luther published the Address to the German Nobility and his Babylonian Captivity of the Church.  This is one of the most famous and popular of Luther's treatises.  John Dillenberger, who edited an anthology of Luther's writings, said that "[i]f one were to single out one short document representing the content and spirit of Luther's faith, The Freedom of a Christian would undoubtedly be at the top" (John Dillenberger, Martin Luther: Selections from his Writings [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Anchor Books edition, 1961], 42).

The Wikipedia article on this treatise sums it up by saying that it "developed the concept that as fully forgiven children of God, Christians are no longer compelled to keep God's law; however, they freely and willingly serve God and their neighbors."  My perusal suggests that this is a very accurate summary statement.  Luther says many interesting things in this treatise (as in all his writings), but my interest has been particularly drawn to two subjects in particular, both of which concern Luther's doctrine of justification.  Most importantly, so far as I can see, Luther develops here what I would label an "antinomian" position, defining "antinomianism" as "the teaching that Christians are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality" (  Luther does not articulate a complete antinomian system here, for he does not say there is nothing at all we are required by God to do, but his view seems to me to be substantially antinomian.  Secondly, Luther articulates a doctrine of justification here that places the righteousness that justifies us inside of us rather than outside of us, putting his position here at odds with the later Protestant idea of a purely "imputed" righteousness.  Luther's position here, though not all the specifics of his particular form of it, is consistent with the Augustinian position advocated by the Catholic Church.  Luther's antinomianism, however, is diametrically at odds with the position of the Catholic Church.  Interestingly, both of Luther's positions on these points is contrary to later Reformed thought, which both embraced the idea of "imputed" righteousness and firmly rejected antinomianism.

At least, these are my observations.  You can read below and see what you think for yourself!  The entire text is there unedited, with the addition of my inline commentary on things that struck my interest.  I am interested to call attention to Luther's views on these matters in the hopes that greater awareness of the beliefs of the father of the Protestant Reformation might spur on some re-thinking among Protestants regarding the merits of the Protestant split from the Catholic Church and so might help to encourage reunion.  I also just find this stuff interesting.

My text is taken from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library's plain text version.

Title: Concerning Christian Liberty
Creator(s): Luther, Martin (1483-1546)
Rights: Public Domain
CCEL Subjects: All;


by Martin Luther


I'll leave this letter in here for interest and for historical context, but I'll not comment on it as it does not relate significantly to the point of my inline commentary.

Among those monstrous evils of this age with which I have now for three years been waging war, I am sometimes compelled to look to you and to call you to mind, most blessed father Leo. In truth, since you alone are everywhere considered as being the cause of my engaging in war, I cannot at any time fail to remember you; and although I have been compelled by the causeless raging of your impious flatterers against me to appeal from your seat to a future council--fearless of the futile decrees of your predecessors Pius and Julius, who in their foolish tyranny prohibited such an action--yet I have never been so alienated in feeling from your Blessedness as not to have sought with all my might, in diligent prayer and crying to God, all the best gifts for you and for your see. But those who have hitherto endeavoured to terrify me with the majesty of your name and authority, I have begun quite to despise and triumph over. One thing I see remaining which I cannot despise, and this has been the reason of my writing anew to your Blessedness: namely, that I find that blame is cast on me, and that it is imputed to me as a great offence, that in my rashness I am judged to have spared not even your person.

Now, to confess the truth openly, I am conscious that, whenever I have had to mention your person, I have said nothing of you but what was honourable and good. If I had done otherwise, I could by no means have approved my own conduct, but should have supported with all my power the judgment of those men concerning me, nor would anything have pleased me better, than to recant such rashness and impiety. I have called you Daniel in Babylon; and every reader thoroughly knows with what distinguished zeal I defended your conspicuous innocence against Silvester, who tried to stain it. Indeed, the published opinion of so many great men and the repute of your blameless life are too widely famed and too much reverenced throughout the world to be assailable by any man, of however great name, or by any arts. I am not so foolish as to attack one whom everybody praises; nay, it has been and always will be my desire not to attack even those whom public repute disgraces. I am not delighted at the faults of any man, since I am very conscious myself of the great beam in my own eye, nor can I be the first to cast a stone at the adulteress.

I have indeed inveighed sharply against impious doctrines, and I have not been slack to censure my adversaries on account, not of their bad morals, but of their impiety. And for this I am so far from being sorry that I have brought my mind to despise the judgments of men and to persevere in this vehement zeal, according to the example of Christ, who, in His zeal, calls His adversaries a generation of vipers, blind, hypocrites, and children of the devil. Paul, too, charges the sorcerer with being a child of the devil, full of all subtlety and all malice; and defames certain persons as evil workers, dogs, and deceivers. In the opinion of those delicate-eared persons, nothing could be more bitter or intemperate than Paul's language. What can be more bitter than the words of the prophets? The ears of our generation have been made so delicate by the senseless multitude of flatterers that, as soon as we perceive that anything of ours is not approved of, we cry out that we are being bitterly assailed; and when we can repel the truth by no other pretence, we escape by attributing bitterness, impatience, intemperance, to our adversaries. What would be the use of salt if it were not pungent, or of the edge of the sword if it did not slay? Accursed is the man who does the work of the Lord deceitfully.

Wherefore, most excellent Leo, I beseech you to accept my vindication, made in this letter, and to persuade yourself that I have never thought any evil concerning your person; further, that I am one who desires that eternal blessing may fall to your lot, and that I have no dispute with any man concerning morals, but only concerning the word of truth. In all other things I will yield to any one, but I neither can nor will forsake and deny the word. He who thinks otherwise of me, or has taken in my words in another sense, does not think rightly, and has not taken in the truth.

Your see, however, which is called the Court of Rome, and which neither you nor any man can deny to be more corrupt than any Babylon or Sodom, and quite, as I believe, of a lost, desperate, and hopeless impiety, this I have verily abominated, and have felt indignant that the people of Christ should be cheated under your name and the pretext of the Church of Rome; and so I have resisted, and will resist, as long as the spirit of faith shall live in me. Not that I am striving after impossibilities, or hoping that by my labours alone, against the furious opposition of so many flatterers, any good can be done in that most disordered Babylon; but that I feel myself a debtor to my brethren, and am bound to take thought for them, that fewer of them may be ruined, or that their ruin may be less complete, by the plagues of Rome. For many years now, nothing else has overflowed from Rome into the world--as you are not ignorant--than the laying waste of goods, of bodies, and of souls, and the worst examples of all the worst things. These things are clearer than the light to all men; and the Church of Rome, formerly the most holy of all Churches, has become the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death, and hell; so that not even antichrist, if he were to come, could devise any addition to its wickedness.

Meanwhile you, Leo, are sitting like a lamb in the midst of wolves, like Daniel in the midst of lions, and, with Ezekiel, you dwell among scorpions. What opposition can you alone make to these monstrous evils? Take to yourself three or four of the most learned and best of the cardinals. What are these among so many? You would all perish by poison before you could undertake to decide on a remedy. It is all over with the Court of Rome; the wrath of God has come upon her to the uttermost. She hates councils; she dreads to be reformed; she cannot restrain the madness of her impiety; she fills up the sentence passed on her mother, of whom it is said, "We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed; let us forsake her." It had been your duty and that of your cardinals to apply a remedy to these evils, but this gout laughs at the physician's hand, and the chariot does not obey the reins. Under the influence of these feelings, I have always grieved that you, most excellent Leo, who were worthy of a better age, have been made pontiff in this. For the Roman Court is not worthy of you and those like you, but of Satan himself, who in truth is more the ruler in that Babylon than you are.

Oh, would that, having laid aside that glory which your most abandoned enemies declare to be yours, you were living rather in the office of a private priest or on your paternal inheritance! In that glory none are worthy to glory, except the race of Iscariot, the children of perdition. For what happens in your court, Leo, except that, the more wicked and execrable any man is, the more prosperously he can use your name and authority for the ruin of the property and souls of men, for the multiplication of crimes, for the oppression of faith and truth and of the whole Church of God? Oh, Leo! in reality most unfortunate, and sitting on a most perilous throne, I tell you the truth, because I wish you well; for if Bernard felt compassion for his Anastasius at a time when the Roman see, though even then most corrupt, was as yet ruling with better hope than now, why should not we lament, to whom so much further corruption and ruin has been added in three hundred years?

Is it not true that there is nothing under the vast heavens more corrupt, more pestilential, more hateful, than the Court of Rome? She incomparably surpasses the impiety of the Turks, so that in very truth she, who was formerly the gate of heaven, is now a sort of open mouth of hell, and such a mouth as, under the urgent wrath of God, cannot be blocked up; one course alone being left to us wretched men: to call back and save some few, if we can, from that Roman gulf.

Behold, Leo, my father, with what purpose and on what principle it is that I have stormed against that seat of pestilence. I am so far from having felt any rage against your person that I even hoped to gain favour with you and to aid you in your welfare by striking actively and vigorously at that your prison, nay, your hell. For whatever the efforts of all minds can contrive against the confusion of that impious Court will be advantageous to you and to your welfare, and to many others with you. Those who do harm to her are doing your office; those who in every way abhor her are glorifying Christ; in short, those are Christians who are not Romans.

But, to say yet more, even this never entered my heart: to inveigh against the Court of Rome or to dispute at all about her. For, seeing all remedies for her health to be desperate, I looked on her with contempt, and, giving her a bill of divorcement, said to her, "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still," giving myself up to the peaceful and quiet study of sacred literature, that by this I might be of use to the brethren living about me.

While I was making some advance in these studies, Satan opened his eyes and goaded on his servant John Eccius, that notorious adversary of Christ, by the unchecked lust for fame, to drag me unexpectedly into the arena, trying to catch me in one little word concerning the primacy of the Church of Rome, which had fallen from me in passing. That boastful Thraso, foaming and gnashing his teeth, proclaimed that he would dare all things for the glory of God and for the honour of the holy apostolic seat; and, being puffed up respecting your power, which he was about to misuse, he looked forward with all certainty to victory; seeking to promote, not so much the primacy of Peter, as his own pre-eminence among the theologians of this age; for he thought it would contribute in no slight degree to this, if he were to lead Luther in triumph. The result having proved unfortunate for the sophist, an incredible rage torments him; for he feels that whatever discredit to Rome has arisen through me has been caused by the fault of himself alone.

Suffer me, I pray you, most excellent Leo, both to plead my own cause, and to accuse your true enemies. I believe it is known to you in what way Cardinal Cajetan, your imprudent and unfortunate, nay unfaithful, legate, acted towards me. When, on account of my reverence for your name, I had placed myself and all that was mine in his hands, he did not so act as to establish peace, which he could easily have established by one little word, since I at that time promised to be silent and to make an end of my case, if he would command my adversaries to do the same. But that man of pride, not content with this agreement, began to justify my adversaries, to give them free licence, and to order me to recant, a thing which was certainly not in his commission. Thus indeed, when the case was in the best position, it came through his vexatious tyranny into a much worse one. Therefore whatever has followed upon this is the fault not of Luther, but entirely of Cajetan, since he did not suffer me to be silent and remain quiet, which at that time I was entreating for with all my might. What more was it my duty to do?

Next came Charles Miltitz, also a nuncio from your Blessedness. He, though he went up and down with much and varied exertion, and omitted nothing which could tend to restore the position of the cause thrown into confusion by the rashness and pride of Cajetan, had difficulty, even with the help of that very illustrious prince the Elector Frederick, in at last bringing about more than one familiar conference with me. In these I again yielded to your great name, and was prepared to keep silence, and to accept as my judge either the Archbishop of Treves, or the Bishop of Naumburg; and thus it was done and concluded. While this was being done with good hope of success, lo! that other and greater enemy of yours, Eccius, rushed in with his Leipsic disputation, which he had undertaken against Carlstadt, and, having taken up a new question concerning the primacy of the Pope, turned his arms unexpectedly against me, and completely overthrew the plan for peace. Meanwhile Charles Miltitz was waiting, disputations were held, judges were being chosen, but no decision was arrived at. And no wonder! for by the falsehoods, pretences, and arts of Eccius the whole business was brought into such thorough disorder, confusion, and festering soreness, that, whichever way the sentence might lean, a greater conflagration was sure to arise; for he was seeking, not after truth, but after his own credit. In this case too I omitted nothing which it was right that I should do.

I confess that on this occasion no small part of the corruptions of Rome came to light; but, if there was any offence in this, it was the fault of Eccius, who, in taking on him a burden beyond his strength, and in furiously aiming at credit for himself, unveiled to the whole world the disgrace of Rome.

Here is that enemy of yours, Leo, or rather of your Court; by his example alone we may learn that an enemy is not more baneful than a flatterer. For what did he bring about by his flattery, except evils which no king could have brought about? At this day the name of the Court of Rome stinks in the nostrils of the world, the papal authority is growing weak, and its notorious ignorance is evil spoken of. We should hear none of these things, if Eccius had not disturbed the plans of Miltitz and myself for peace. He feels this clearly enough himself in the indignation he shows, too late and in vain, against the publication of my books. He ought to have reflected on this at the time when he was all mad for renown, and was seeking in your cause nothing but his own objects, and that with the greatest peril to you. The foolish man hoped that, from fear of your name, I should yield and keep silence; for I do not think he presumed on his talents and learning. Now, when he sees that I am very confident and speak aloud, he repents too late of his rashness, and sees--if indeed he does see it--that there is One in heaven who resists the proud, and humbles the presumptuous.

Since then we were bringing about by this disputation nothing but the greater confusion of the cause of Rome, Charles Miltitz for the third time addressed the Fathers of the Order, assembled in chapter, and sought their advice for the settlement of the case, as being now in a most troubled and perilous state. Since, by the favour of God, there was no hope of proceeding against me by force, some of the more noted of their number were sent to me, and begged me at least to show respect to your person and to vindicate in a humble letter both your innocence and my own. They said that the affair was not as yet in a position of extreme hopelessness, if Leo X., in his inborn kindliness, would put his hand to it. On this I, who have always offered and wished for peace, in order that I might devote myself to calmer and more useful pursuits, and who for this very purpose have acted with so much spirit and vehemence, in order to put down by the strength and impetuosity of my words, as well as of my feelings, men whom I saw to be very far from equal to myself--I, I say, not only gladly yielded, but even accepted it with joy and gratitude, as the greatest kindness and benefit, if you should think it right to satisfy my hopes.

Thus I come, most blessed Father, and in all abasement beseech you to put to your hand, if it is possible, and impose a curb to those flatterers who are enemies of peace, while they pretend peace. But there is no reason, most blessed Father, why any one should assume that I am to utter a recantation, unless he prefers to involve the case in still greater confusion. Moreover, I cannot bear with laws for the interpretation of the word of God, since the word of God, which teaches liberty in all other things, ought not to be bound. Saving these two things, there is nothing which I am not able, and most heartily willing, to do or to suffer. I hate contention; I will challenge no one; in return I wish not to be challenged; but, being challenged, I will not be dumb in the cause of Christ my Master. For your Blessedness will be able by one short and easy word to call these controversies before you and suppress them, and to impose silence and peace on both sides--a word which I have ever longed to hear.

Therefore, Leo, my Father, beware of listening to those sirens who make you out to be not simply a man, but partly a god, so that you can command and require whatever you will. It will not happen so, nor will you prevail. You are the servant of servants, and more than any other man, in a most pitiable and perilous position. Let not those men deceive you who pretend that you are lord of the world; who will not allow any one to be a Christian without your authority; who babble of your having power over heaven, hell, and purgatory. These men are your enemies and are seeking your soul to destroy it, as Isaiah says, "My people, they that call thee blessed are themselves deceiving thee." They are in error who raise you above councils and the universal Church; they are in error who attribute to you alone the right of interpreting Scripture. All these men are seeking to set up their own impieties in the Church under your name, and alas! Satan has gained much through them in the time of your predecessors.

In brief, trust not in any who exalt you, but in those who humiliate you. For this is the judgment of God: "He hath cast down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble." See how unlike Christ was to His successors, though all will have it that they are His vicars. I fear that in truth very many of them have been in too serious a sense His vicars, for a vicar represents a prince who is absent. Now if a pontiff rules while Christ is absent and does not dwell in his heart, what else is he but a vicar of Christ? And then what is that Church but a multitude without Christ? What indeed is such a vicar but antichrist and an idol? How much more rightly did the Apostles speak, who call themselves servants of a present Christ, not the vicars of an absent one!

Perhaps I am shamelessly bold in seeming to teach so great a head, by whom all men ought to be taught, and from whom, as those plagues of yours boast, the thrones of judges receive their sentence; but I imitate St. Bernard in his book concerning Considerations addressed to Eugenius, a book which ought to be known by heart by every pontiff. I do this, not from any desire to teach, but as a duty, from that simple and faithful solicitude which teaches us to be anxious for all that is safe for our neighbours, and does not allow considerations of worthiness or unworthiness to be entertained, being intent only on the dangers or advantage of others. For since I know that your Blessedness is driven and tossed by the waves at Rome, so that the depths of the sea press on you with infinite perils, and that you are labouring under such a condition of misery that you need even the least help from any the least brother, I do not seem to myself to be acting unsuitably if I forget your majesty till I shall have fulfilled the office of charity. I will not flatter in so serious and perilous a matter; and if in this you do not see that I am your friend and most thoroughly your subject, there is One to see and judge.

In fine, that I may not approach you empty-handed, blessed Father, I bring with me this little treatise, published under your name, as a good omen of the establishment of peace and of good hope. By this you may perceive in what pursuits I should prefer and be able to occupy myself to more profit, if I were allowed, or had been hitherto allowed, by your impious flatterers. It is a small matter, if you look to its exterior, but, unless I mistake, it is a summary of the Christian life put together in small compass, if you apprehend its meaning. I, in my poverty, have no other present to make you, nor do you need anything else than to be enriched by a spiritual gift. I commend myself to your Paternity and Blessedness, whom may the Lord Jesus preserve for ever.

Amen. Wittenberg, 6th September, 1520.


Christian faith has appeared to many an easy thing; nay, not a few even reckon it among the social virtues, as it were; and this they do because they have not made proof of it experimentally, and have never tasted of what efficacy it is. For it is not possible for any man to write well about it, or to understand well what is rightly written, who has not at some time tasted of its spirit, under the pressure of tribulation; while he who has tasted of it, even to a very small extent, can never write, speak, think, or hear about it sufficiently. For it is a living fountain, springing up into eternal life, as Christ calls it in John iv.

Now, though I cannot boast of my abundance, and though I know how poorly I am furnished, yet I hope that, after having been vexed by various temptations, I have attained some little drop of faith, and that I can speak of this matter, if not with more elegance, certainly with more solidity, than those literal and too subtle disputants who have hitherto discoursed upon it without understanding their own words. That I may open then an easier way for the ignorant--for these alone I am trying to serve--I first lay down these two propositions, concerning spiritual liberty and servitude:--

 A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one.

Although these statements appear contradictory, yet, when they are found to agree together, they will make excellently for my purpose. They are both the statements of Paul himself, who says, "Though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all" (1 Cor. ix. 19), and "Owe no man anything, but to love one another" (Rom. xiii. 8). Now love is by its own nature dutiful and obedient to the beloved object. Thus even Christ, though Lord of all things, was yet made of a woman; made under the law; at once free and a servant; at once in the form of God and in the form of a servant.

Let us examine the subject on a deeper and less simple principle. Man is composed of a twofold nature, a spiritual and a bodily. As regards the spiritual nature, which they name the soul, he is called the spiritual, inward, new man; as regards the bodily nature, which they name the flesh, he is called the fleshly, outward, old man. The Apostle speaks of this: "Though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day" (2 Cor. iv. 16). The result of this diversity is that in the Scriptures opposing statements are made concerning the same man, the fact being that in the same man these two men are opposed to one another; the flesh lusting against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh (Gal. v. 17).

We first approach the subject of the inward man, that we may see by what means a man becomes justified, free, and a true Christian; that is, a spiritual, new, and inward man. This is interesting language on justification from a Protestant point of view, since it seems to equate justification and regeneration. It is certain that absolutely none among outward things, under whatever name they may be reckoned, has any influence in producing Christian righteousness or liberty, nor, on the other hand, unrighteousness or slavery. This can be shown by an easy argument.

What can it profit the soul that the body should be in good condition, free, and full of life; that it should eat, drink, and act according to its pleasure; when even the most impious slaves of every kind of vice are prosperous in these matters? Again, what harm can ill-health, bondage, hunger, thirst, or any other outward evil, do to the soul, when even the most pious of men and the freest in the purity of their conscience, are harassed by these things? Neither of these states of things has to do with the liberty or the slavery of the soul.

And so it will profit nothing that the body should be adorned with sacred vestments, or dwell in holy places, or be occupied in sacred offices, or pray, fast, and abstain from certain meats, or do whatever works can be done through the body and in the body.  Why should not these sorts of things be aids to spiritual development?--granting that the crucial thing is the inward, spiritual development and not the outward actions or decorations. Something widely different will be necessary for the justification and liberty of the soul, since the things I have spoken of can be done by any impious person, and only hypocrites are produced by devotion to these things. On the other hand, it will not at all injure the soul that the body should be clothed in profane raiment, should dwell in profane places, should eat and drink in the ordinary fashion, should not pray aloud, and should leave undone all the things above mentioned, which may be done by hypocrites.

And, to cast everything aside, even speculation, meditations, and whatever things can be performed by the exertions of the soul itself, are of no profit. One thing, and one alone, is necessary for life, justification, and Christian liberty; and that is the most holy word of God, the Gospel of Christ, as He says, "I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in Me shall not die eternally" (John xi. 25), and also, "If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed" (John viii. 36), and, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt. iv. 4).

Let us therefore hold it for certain and firmly established that the soul can do without everything except the word of God, without which none at all of its wants are provided for. But, having the word, it is rich and wants for nothing, since that is the word of life, of truth, of light, of peace, of justification, of salvation, of joy, of liberty, of wisdom, of virtue, of grace, of glory, and of every good thing. It is on this account that the prophet in a whole Psalm (Psalm cxix.), and in many other places, sighs for and calls upon the word of God with so many groanings and words.

Again, there is no more cruel stroke of the wrath of God than when He sends a famine of hearing His words (Amos viii. 11), just as there is no greater favour from Him than the sending forth of His word, as it is said, "He sent His word and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions" (Psalm cvii. 20). Christ was sent for no other office than that of the word; and the order of Apostles, that of bishops, and that of the whole body of the clergy, have been called and instituted for no object but the ministry of the word.

But you will ask, What is this word, and by what means is it to be used, since there are so many words of God? I answer, The Apostle Paul (Rom. i.) explains what it is, namely the Gospel of God, concerning His Son, incarnate, suffering, risen, and glorified, through the Spirit, the Sanctifier. To preach Christ is to feed the soul, to justify it, to set it free, and to save it, if it believes the preaching. For faith alone and the efficacious use of the word of God, bring salvation. "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" (Rom. x. 9); and again, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" (Rom. x. 4), and "The just shall live by faith" (Rom. i. 17). For the word of God cannot be received and honoured by any works, but by faith alone. Hence it is clear that as the soul needs the word alone for life and justification, so it is justified by faith alone, and not by any works. For if it could be justified by any other means, it would have no need of the word, nor consequently of faith.

But this faith cannot consist at all with works; that is, if you imagine that you can be justified by those works, whatever they are, along with it. For this would be to halt between two opinions, to worship Baal, and to kiss the hand to him, which is a very great iniquity, as Job says. Therefore, when you begin to believe, you learn at the same time that all that is in you is utterly guilty, sinful, and damnable, according to that saying, "All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Rom. iii. 23), and also: "There is none righteous, no, not one; they are all gone out of the way; they are together become unprofitable: there is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Rom. iii. 10-12). When you have learnt this, you will know that Christ is necessary for you, since He has suffered and risen again for you, that, believing on Him, you might by this faith become another man, all your sins being remitted, and you being justified by the merits of another, namely of Christ alone.  Although it might be said that Luther's language here lacks nuance, yet, taken without suspicion and in its best light, this is good Catholic doctrine.  Without Christ, we are sinners doomed to hell.  We can only be justified by the merits of another, namely of Christ alone.

Since then this faith can reign only in the inward man, as it is said, "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness" (Rom. x. 10); and since it alone justifies, it is evident that by no outward work or labour can the inward man be at all justified, made free, and saved; and that no works whatever have any relation to him. And so, on the other hand, it is solely by impiety and incredulity of heart that he becomes guilty and a slave of sin, deserving condemnation, not by any outward sin or work. Therefore the first care of every Christian ought to be to lay aside all reliance on works, and strengthen his faith alone more and more, and by it grow in the knowledge, not of works, but of Christ Jesus, who has suffered and risen again for him, as Peter teaches (1 Peter v.) when he makes no other work to be a Christian one. Thus Christ, when the Jews asked Him what they should do that they might work the works of God, rejected the multitude of works, with which He saw that they were puffed up, and commanded them one thing only, saying, "This is the work of God: that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent, for Him hath God the Father sealed" (John vi. 27, 29).  Indeed, all our trust must be in Christ alone.  If this is all "faith alone" means, then Amen to it!

Hence a right faith in Christ is an incomparable treasure, carrying with it universal salvation and preserving from all evil, as it is said, "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mark xvi. 16). Isaiah, looking to this treasure, predicted, "The consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness. For the Lord God of hosts shall make a consumption, even determined (verbum abbreviatum et consummans), in the midst of the land" (Isa. x. 22, 23). As if he said, "Faith, which is the brief and complete fulfilling of the law, will fill those who believe with such righteousness that they will need nothing else for justification." Thus, too, Paul says, "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness" (Rom. x. 10).  Indeed, this is Paul's doctrine.  We do not attain to righteousness and justification by our own works of obedience to God's law, but by receiving righteousness as a gift from God through the merits of Christ by faith.  In that sense, faith is the fulfilling of the law--because it receives from God the divine gift of righteousness.

But you ask how it can be the fact that faith alone justifies, and affords without works so great a treasure of good things, when so many works, ceremonies, and laws are prescribed to us in the Scriptures? I answer, Before all things bear in mind what I have said: that faith alone without works justifies, sets free, and saves, as I shall show more clearly below.

Meanwhile it is to be noted that the whole Scripture of God is divided into two parts: precepts and promises. The precepts certainly teach us what is good, but what they teach is not forthwith done. For they show us what we ought to do, but do not give us the power to do it. They were ordained, however, for the purpose of showing man to himself, that through them he may learn his own impotence for good and may despair of his own strength. For this reason they are called the Old Testament, and are so. Yes indeed, the law cannot save inasmuch as it is weak through the flesh.  It cannot impart righteousness to us, because we are fallen sinners.  Those who seek to gain righteousness through their own obedience to the law are under a curse--not because the law is bad, but because we are bad.

For example, "Thou shalt not covet," is a precept by which we are all convicted of sin, since no man can help coveting, whatever efforts to the contrary he may make. In order therefore that he may fulfil the precept, and not covet, he is constrained to despair of himself and to seek elsewhere and through another the help which he cannot find in himself; as it is said, "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in Me is thine help" (Hosea xiii. 9). Now what is done by this one precept is done by all; for all are equally impossible of fulfilment by us.  Indeed, it is impossible for us without grace to fulfill the law.  We must therefore go to Christ and trust in the righteousness he merits for us and gives us as a free gift and not seek vainly to produce fulfillment of the law from our own natural resources.  However, with the grace of Christ, we can indeed fulfill the law.  Romans 8:1-4:  "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."  By the Spirit we can obey the law.  We do not reach perfection in this life, but we can indeed truly love God and our neighbor, which is the fulfillment of the law.  (Galatians 5:14, etc.)

Now when a man has through the precepts been taught his own impotence, and become anxious by what means he may satisfy the law--for the law must be satisfied, so that no jot or tittle of it may pass away, otherwise he must be hopelessly condemned--then, being truly humbled and brought to nothing in his own eyes, he finds in himself no resource for justification and salvation.

Then comes in that other part of Scripture, the promises of God, which declare the glory of God, and say, "If you wish to fulfil the law, and, as the law requires, not to covet, lo! believe in Christ, in whom are promised to you grace, justification, peace, and liberty." All these things you shall have, if you believe, and shall be without them if you do not believe. For what is impossible for you by all the works of the law, which are many and yet useless, you shall fulfil in an easy and summary way through faith, because God the Father has made everything to depend on faith, so that whosoever has it has all things, and he who has it not has nothing. "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all" (Rom. xi. 32). Thus the promises of God give that which the precepts exact, and fulfil what the law commands; so that all is of God alone, both the precepts and their fulfilment. He alone commands; He alone also fulfils. Hence the promises of God belong to the New Testament; nay, are the New Testament.  Amen!

Now, since these promises of God are words of holiness, truth, righteousness, liberty, and peace, and are full of universal goodness, the soul, which cleaves to them with a firm faith, is so united to them, nay, thoroughly absorbed by them, that it not only partakes in, but is penetrated and saturated by, all their virtues. For if the touch of Christ was healing, how much more does that most tender spiritual touch, nay, absorption of the word, communicate to the soul all that belongs to the word! In this way therefore the soul, through faith alone, without works, is from the word of God justified, sanctified, endued with truth, peace, and liberty, and filled full with every good thing, and is truly made the child of God, as it is said, "To them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name" (John i. 12).  Amen!  Our justification, our sanctification, the entirety of our salvation, is given to us from Christ as a free gift and not produced or earned by our works.

From all this it is easy to understand why faith has such great power, and why no good works, nor even all good works put together, can compare with it, since no work can cleave to the word of God or be in the soul. Faith alone and the word reign in it; and such as is the word, such is the soul made by it, just as iron exposed to fire glows like fire, on account of its union with the fire. It is clear then that to a Christian man his faith suffices for everything, and that he has no need of works for justification. But if he has no need of works, neither has he need of the law; and if he has no need of the law, he is certainly free from the law, and the saying is true, "The law is not made for a righteous man" (1 Tim. i. 9). This is that Christian liberty, our faith, the effect of which is, not that we should be careless or lead a bad life, but that no one should need the law or works for justification and salvation.  I'm a bit uneasy by some of this.  I agree that we should trust in Christ alone and not in ourselves, receiving all from him.  I agree that faith in Christ unites us to Christ and so changes us into his image.  I agree that we do not need the law in order to produce our own righteousness from ourselves, since we cannot do that.  However, I am uncomfortable saying we do not need the law categorically, for we still need it to tell us how we should live.  Also, we cannot earn or produce justification by our works, in the sense that we cannot gain righteousness by producing it from ourselves from our own natural resources rather than receiving it from Christ, but I wouldn't say that we don't need works or the law in relation to justification at all, because justification involves the gift of righteousness which shows itself in good works.  Ephesians 2:8-10:  "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."  We do indeed need righteousness and good works.  That's why we need justification through Christ--only from him can we gain the Spirit who makes us righteous and gives us good works.  But we'll wait to see if Luther clarifies his meaning further below.

Let us consider this as the first virtue of faith; and let us look also to the second. This also is an office of faith: that it honours with the utmost veneration and the highest reputation Him in whom it believes, inasmuch as it holds Him to be truthful and worthy of belief. For there is no honour like that reputation of truth and righteousness with which we honour Him in whom we believe. What higher credit can we attribute to any one than truth and righteousness, and absolute goodness? On the other hand, it is the greatest insult to brand any one with the reputation of falsehood and unrighteousness, or to suspect him of these, as we do when we disbelieve him.

Thus the soul, in firmly believing the promises of God, holds Him to be true and righteous; and it can attribute to God no higher glory than the credit of being so. The highest worship of God is to ascribe to Him truth, righteousness, and whatever qualities we must ascribe to one in whom we believe. In doing this the soul shows itself prepared to do His whole will; in doing this it hallows His name, and gives itself up to be dealt with as it may please God. For it cleaves to His promises, and never doubts that He is true, just, and wise, and will do, dispose, and provide for all things in the best way. Is not such a soul, in this its faith, most obedient to God in all things? What commandment does there remain which has not been amply fulfilled by such an obedience? What fulfilment can be more full than universal obedience? Now this is not accomplished by works, but by faith alone.  It sounds like what Luther is saying here is that to have faith in God is to pay him the highest honor, and so is to worship him supremely, which worship is the fulfillment of the law (the heart of which is to love God supremely--"Love the Lord your God will all your heart, mind, soul, and strength."), and so faith fully fulfills the commandments of God.  He also adds that a soul that has such faith "shows itself prepared to do His whole will"--perhaps because a person who has such faith in God will trust him and love him supremely and so will be inclined to respect his authority and do what he says.  This all sounds good to me.  That last sentence I find a little jarring.  Why contrast works and faith here, when the point seems to be that faith is the fullness of works?  But perhaps Luther is simply emphasizing that it is the person to trusts God who is truly obedient to him, whereas those who boast in works but have no faith are really trying to rival God by producing their own good from themselves, and so are actually far from doing truly good works.

On the other hand, what greater rebellion, impiety, or insult to God can there be, than not to believe His promises? What else is this, than either to make God a liar, or to doubt His truth--that is, to attribute truth to ourselves, but to God falsehood and levity? In doing this, is not a man denying God and setting himself up as an idol in his own heart? What then can works, done in such a state of impiety, profit us, were they even angelic or apostolic works? Rightly hath God shut up all, not in wrath nor in lust, but in unbelief, in order that those who pretend that they are fulfilling the law by works of purity and benevolence (which are social and human virtues) may not presume that they will therefore be saved, but, being included in the sin of unbelief, may either seek mercy, or be justly condemned.  It sounds like Luther is saying that a person who does "good works" with an attitude lacking trust in God's promises is not really obeying God but actually opposing him, since he commands us to do good works in humility and trust in him.  Those who rely on such "good works" for salvation will be surprised at the end, for they will find that their supposed gold was nothing but fool's gold.  Amen!

But when God sees that truth is ascribed to Him, and that in the faith of our hearts He is honoured with all the honour of which He is worthy, then in return He honours us on account of that faith, attributing to us truth and righteousness. For faith does truth and righteousness in rendering to God what is His; and therefore in return God gives glory to our righteousness. It is true and righteous that God is true and righteous; and to confess this and ascribe these attributes to Him, this it is to be true and righteous. Thus He says, "Them that honour Me I will honour, and they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed" (1 Sam. ii. 30). And so Paul says that Abraham's faith was imputed to him for righteousness, because by it he gave glory to God; and that to us also, for the same reason, it shall be imputed for righteousness, if we believe (Rom. iv.).  I think he is saying that if we honor God with our faith, he will honor our faith by acknowledging that faith as real righteousness--since that is what it really is, since it honors God (which is the core of the idea of righteousness).  If I am interpreting Luther correctly here, he is not speaking in a way that is very friendly to certain versions of the Protestant doctrine of justification, for Luther seems to be saying that God will accept us as righteous because he has made us truly internally righteous (faith being the essence of righteousness).  This is a very Augustinian way of talking about justification (at least with regard to justifying righteousness being internal).

The third incomparable grace of faith is this: that it unites the soul to Christ, as the wife to the husband, by which mystery, as the Apostle teaches, Christ and the soul are made one flesh. Now if they are one flesh, and if a true marriage--nay, by far the most perfect of all marriages--is accomplished between them (for human marriages are but feeble types of this one great marriage), then it follows that all they have becomes theirs in common, as well good things as evil things; so that whatsoever Christ possesses, that the believing soul may take to itself and boast of as its own, and whatever belongs to the soul, that Christ claims as His.

If we compare these possessions, we shall see how inestimable is the gain. Christ is full of grace, life, and salvation; the soul is full of sin, death, and condemnation. Let faith step in, and then sin, death, and hell will belong to Christ, and grace, life, and salvation to the soul. For, if He is a Husband, He must needs take to Himself that which is His wife's, and at the same time, impart to His wife that which is His. For, in giving her His own body and Himself, how can He but give her all that is His? And, in taking to Himself the body of His wife, how can He but take to Himself all that is hers?

In this is displayed the delightful sight, not only of communion, but of a prosperous warfare, of victory, salvation, and redemption. For, since Christ is God and man, and is such a Person as neither has sinned, nor dies, nor is condemned, nay, cannot sin, die, or be condemned, and since His righteousness, life, and salvation are invincible, eternal, and almighty,--when I say, such a Person, by the wedding-ring of faith, takes a share in the sins, death, and hell of His wife, nay, makes them His own, and deals with them no otherwise than as if they were His, and as if He Himself had sinned; and when He suffers, dies, and descends to hell, that He may overcome all things, and since sin, death, and hell cannot swallow Him up, they must needs be swallowed up by Him in stupendous conflict. For His righteousness rises above the sins of all men; His life is more powerful than all death; His salvation is more unconquerable than all hell.

Thus the believing soul, by the pledge of its faith in Christ, becomes free from all sin, fearless of death, safe from hell, and endowed with the eternal righteousness, life, and salvation of its Husband Christ. Thus He presents to Himself a glorious bride, without spot or wrinkle, cleansing her with the washing of water by the word; that is, by faith in the word of life, righteousness, and salvation. Thus He betrothes her unto Himself "in faithfulness, in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving-kindness, and in mercies" (Hosea ii. 19, 20).  Amen!  Very well said!

Who then can value highly enough these royal nuptials? Who can comprehend the riches of the glory of this grace? Christ, that rich and pious Husband, takes as a wife a needy and impious harlot, redeeming her from all her evils and supplying her with all His good things. It is impossible now that her sins should destroy her, since they have been laid upon Christ and swallowed up in Him, and since she has in her Husband Christ a righteousness which she may claim as her own, and which she can set up with confidence against all her sins, against death and hell, saying, "If I have sinned, my Christ, in whom I believe, has not sinned; all mine is His, and all His is mine," as it is written, "My beloved is mine, and I am His" (Cant. ii. 16). This is what Paul says: "Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ," victory over sin and death, as he says, "The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law" (1 Cor. xv. 56, 57).  Again, Amen--to a great extent, at least.  I do begin to wonder about some of the language Luther is using here.  I love the marriage analogy and how Luther uses it to talk about, in St. Paul's words, how God "hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."  Luther describes this beautifully!  But I am a little concerned when he talks about how the "wife" (that is, the Christian) can say, "If I have sinned, Christ has not, and so I don't need to worry about my sin."  Yes, that is a beautiful truth, if it means that our sins are washed away by our union with Christ as he makes us holy (which manifests itself in the production of good works).  But if someone were to feel that he has no need to repent of his sins, as if he could sin as he pleases with impunity while pleading the righteousness of Christ to guard against all condemnation, that would be a very dangerous direction to go in.  "Christ is righteous, so I don't have to be!"  That would be a serious heresy, the heresy of antinomianism--which can be defined as "the teaching that Christians are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality" (  Justification by faith in Christ does not do away with the need for obedience to the law, but rather it supplies that obedience by making us righteous.  But Luther, despite some strong language, has not said anything here that requires an antinomian interpretation.

From all this you will again understand why so much importance is attributed to faith, so that it alone can fulfil the law and justify without any works. For you see that the First Commandment, which says, "Thou shalt worship one God only," is fulfilled by faith alone. If you were nothing but good works from the soles of your feet to the crown of your head, you would not be worshipping God, nor fulfilling the First Commandment, since it is impossible to worship God without ascribing to Him the glory of truth and of universal goodness, as it ought in truth to be ascribed. Now this is not done by works, but only by faith of heart. It is not by working, but by believing, that we glorify God, and confess Him to be true. On this ground faith alone is the righteousness of a Christian man, and the fulfilling of all the commandments. For to him who fulfils the first the task of fulfilling all the rest is easy. So faith is the fulfillment of the First Commandment, because it amounts to worshipping God as God.  OK, but he also says we need no other works.  Faith alone is all we need.  The language here is very idiosyncratic, and really not very biblical.  None of the biblical writers say anything like this.  St. Paul talks about justification by faith, but he never says we only need faith because faith fulfills all the commandments by worshipping God aright.  Luther says faith is all we need, but then he makes that a bit unclear in that last sentence where he seems to anticipate other works that would fulfill other commandments (faith fulfilling the First Commandment).  So I am a little confused at this point.  Does faith fulfill the entire law, all the commandments?  Or only the First?  Also, what exactly is involved in Luther's definition of "faith"?  It sounds like he might be using the term so broadly that it really includes love, hope, and all other commandments.  In that case, all Luther is saying is that all we need to do is obey God's commandments in a humble manner that ascribes our righteousness to God as a gift from him--which is a perfectly orthodox idea.  But if "faith" is anything less than simply a different way of saying "obedience to all God's commandments in reliance on his grace," and if the concept of "faith" does not include obedience to all of the commandments (so that a person could be conceived to have "faith" but not be in obedience to some of the commandments--say, the command against stealing), then I am wary of where Luther might be going when he suggests that "faith" is all we need and we need no works.  But we'll see how he proceeds.

Works, since they are irrational things, cannot glorify God, although they may be done to the glory of God, if faith be present. But at present we are inquiring, not into the quality of the works done, but into him who does them, who glorifies God, and brings forth good works. This is faith of heart, the head and the substance of all our righteousness. Hence that is a blind and perilous doctrine which teaches that the commandments are fulfilled by works. The commandments must have been fulfilled previous to any good works, and good works follow their fulfillment, as we shall see.  Again, he is contrasting "faith" with "works" while at the same time seeming to define "faith" to include all righteousness.  There is something called "faith" which we need to have, and we need nothing else, for this is the substance of all our righteousness and fulfills all the commands of God, and yet this "faith" is different from "good works," which follow it.  I'm still not entirely sure what this means.

But, that we may have a wider view of that grace which our inner man has in Christ, we must know that in the Old Testament God sanctified to Himself every first-born male. The birthright was of great value, giving a superiority over the rest by the double honour of priesthood and kingship. For the first-born brother was priest and lord of all the rest.

Under this figure was foreshown Christ, the true and only First-born of God the Father and of the Virgin Mary, and a true King and Priest, not in a fleshly and earthly sense. For His kingdom is not of this world; it is in heavenly and spiritual things that He reigns and acts as Priest; and these are righteousness, truth, wisdom, peace, salvation, etc. Not but that all things, even those of earth and hell, are subject to Him--for otherwise how could He defend and save us from them?--but it is not in these, nor by these, that His kingdom stands.

So, too, His priesthood does not consist in the outward display of vestments and gestures, as did the human priesthood of Aaron and our ecclesiastical priesthood at this day, but in spiritual things, wherein, in His invisible office, He intercedes for us with God in heaven, and there offers Himself, and performs all the duties of a priest, as Paul describes Him to the Hebrews under the figure of Melchizedek. Nor does He only pray and intercede for us; He also teaches us inwardly in the spirit with the living teachings of His Spirit. Now these are the two special offices of a priest, as is figured to us in the case of fleshly priests by visible prayers and sermons.  It was unfair of Luther to say of the priests in his day that their priesthood consisted only in the "outward display of vestments and gestures."  As Luther acknowledges, and as Catholic priests have always acknowledged as well, there are far more important spiritual realities that go into the concept of "priesthood."  Luther did not need to generalize and insult all the living priests of his day.  Sure, there are priests who reflect very poorly on their office, but there are others who reflect very well on it, and the goodness of the office itself is not destroyed by those who abuse it.

As Christ by His birthright has obtained these two dignities, so He imparts and communicates them to every believer in Him, under that law of matrimony of which we have spoken above, by which all that is the husband's is also the wife's. Hence all we who believe on Christ are kings and priests in Christ, as it is said, "Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvellous light" (1 Peter ii. 9).

These two things stand thus. First, as regards kingship, every Christian is by faith so exalted above all things that, in spiritual power, he is completely lord of all things, so that nothing whatever can do him any hurt; yea, all things are subject to him, and are compelled to be subservient to his salvation. Thus Paul says, "All things work together for good to them who are the called" (Rom. viii. 28), and also, "Whether life, or death, or things present, or things to come, all are yours; and ye are Christ's" (1 Cor. iii. 22, 23).

Not that in the sense of corporeal power any one among Christians has been appointed to possess and rule all things, according to the mad and senseless idea of certain ecclesiastics. That is the office of kings, princes, and men upon earth. In the experience of life we see that we are subjected to all things, and suffer many things, even death. Yea, the more of a Christian any man is, to so many the more evils, sufferings, and deaths is he subject, as we see in the first place in Christ the First-born, and in all His holy brethren.

This is a spiritual power, which rules in the midst of enemies, and is powerful in the midst of distresses. And this is nothing else than that strength is made perfect in my weakness, and that I can turn all things to the profit of my salvation; so that even the cross and death are compelled to serve me and to work together for my salvation. This is a lofty and eminent dignity, a true and almighty dominion, a spiritual empire, in which there is nothing so good, nothing so bad, as not to work together for my good, if only I believe. And yet there is nothing of which I have need--for faith alone suffices for my salvation--unless that in it faith may exercise the power and empire of its liberty. This is the inestimable power and liberty of Christians.

Nor are we only kings and the freest of all men, but also priests for ever, a dignity far higher than kingship, because by that priesthood we are worthy to appear before God, to pray for others, and to teach one another mutually the things which are of God. For these are the duties of priests, and they cannot possibly be permitted to any unbeliever. Christ has obtained for us this favour, if we believe in Him: that just as we are His brethren and co-heirs and fellow-kings with Him, so we should be also fellow-priests with Him, and venture with confidence, through the spirit of faith, to come into the presence of God, and cry, "Abba, Father!" and to pray for one another, and to do all things which we see done and figured in the visible and corporeal office of priesthood. But to an unbelieving person nothing renders service or work for good. He himself is in servitude to all things, and all things turn out for evil to him, because he uses all things in an impious way for his own advantage, and not for the glory of God. And thus he is not a priest, but a profane person, whose prayers are turned into sin, nor does he ever appear in the presence of God, because God does not hear sinners.  Perhaps Luther is exaggerating a bit here, but while it is true that all Christians are priests in a sense, it does not follow from this that all Christians can do everything the ministerial, ordained priests can do.

Who then can comprehend the loftiness of that Christian dignity which, by its royal power, rules over all things, even over death, life, and sin, and, by its priestly glory, is all-powerful with God, since God does what He Himself seeks and wishes, as it is written, "He will fulfil the desire of them that fear Him; He also will hear their cry, and will save them"? (Psalm cxlv. 19). This glory certainly cannot be attained by any works, but by faith only.

From these considerations any one may clearly see how a Christian man is free from all things; so that he needs no works in order to be justified and saved, but receives these gifts in abundance from faith alone. Nay, were he so foolish as to pretend to be justified, set free, saved, and made a Christian, by means of any good work, he would immediately lose faith, with all its benefits. Such folly is prettily represented in the fable where a dog, running along in the water and carrying in his mouth a real piece of meat, is deceived by the reflection of the meat in the water, and, in trying with open mouth to seize it, loses the meat and its image at the same time.  Well said.  If we try to gain righteousness by works instead of by faith, we will lose what we seek, for righteousness can only be a gift of God to fallen sinners.

Here you will ask, "If all who are in the Church are priests, by what character are those whom we now call priests to be distinguished from the laity?" I reply, By the use of these words, "priest," "clergy," "spiritual person," "ecclesiastic," an injustice has been done, since they have been transferred from the remaining body of Christians to those few who are now, by hurtful custom, called ecclesiastics. For Holy Scripture makes no distinction between them, except that those who are now boastfully called popes, bishops, and lords, it calls ministers, servants, and stewards, who are to serve the rest in the ministry of the word, for teaching the faith of Christ and the liberty of believers. For though it is true that we are all equally priests, yet we cannot, nor, if we could, ought we all to, minister and teach publicly. Thus Paul says, "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God" (1 Cor. iv. 1).  OK, well, it seems then that his argument here may be more of a semantic quibble.  The Catholic Church recognizes the priesthood of all Christians as well as the ministerial priesthood with its special functions.

This bad system has now issued in such a pompous display of power and such a terrible tyranny that no earthly government can be compared to it, as if the laity were something else than Christians. Through this perversion of things it has happened that the knowledge of Christian grace, of faith, of liberty, and altogether of Christ, has utterly perished, and has been succeeded by an intolerable bondage to human works and laws; and, according to the Lamentations of Jeremiah, we have become the slaves of the vilest men on earth, who abuse our misery to all the disgraceful and ignominious purposes of their own will.  This is a little too vague to respond to.  There was certainly corruption among priests in Luther's time, as there always is and always will be in this world, but, in pointing that out, we need to be careful not to exaggerate and paint an entirely negative picture.

Returning to the subject which we had begun, I think it is made clear by these considerations that it is not sufficient, nor a Christian course, to preach the works, life, and words of Christ in a historic manner, as facts which it suffices to know as an example how to frame our life, as do those who are now held the best preachers, and much less so to keep silence altogether on these things and to teach in their stead the laws of men and the decrees of the Fathers. There are now not a few persons who preach and read about Christ with the object of moving the human affections to sympathise with Christ, to indignation against the Jews, and other childish and womanish absurdities of that kind.

Now preaching ought to have the object of promoting faith in Him, so that He may not only be Christ, but a Christ for you and for me, and that what is said of Him, and what He is called, may work in us. And this faith is produced and is maintained by preaching why Christ came, what He has brought us and given to us, and to what profit and advantage He is to be received. This is done when the Christian liberty which we have from Christ Himself is rightly taught, and we are shown in what manner all we Christians are kings and priests, and how we are lords of all things, and may be confident that whatever we do in the presence of God is pleasing and acceptable to Him.

Whose heart would not rejoice in its inmost core at hearing these things? Whose heart, on receiving so great a consolation, would not become sweet with the love of Christ, a love to which it can never attain by any laws or works? Who can injure such a heart, or make it afraid? If the consciousness of sin or the horror of death rush in upon it, it is prepared to hope in the Lord, and is fearless of such evils, and undisturbed, until it shall look down upon its enemies. For it believes that the righteousness of Christ is its own, and that its sin is no longer its own, but that of Christ; but, on account of its faith in Christ, all its sin must needs be swallowed up from before the face of the righteousness of Christ, as I have said above. It learns, too, with the Apostle, to scoff at death and sin, and to say, "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. xv. 55-57). For death is swallowed up in victory, not only the victory of Christ, but ours also, since by faith it becomes ours, and in it we too conquer.

Let it suffice to say this concerning the inner man and its liberty, and concerning that righteousness of faith which needs neither laws nor good works; nay, they are even hurtful to it, if any one pretends to be justified by them.

And now let us turn to the other part: to the outward man. Here we shall give an answer to all those who, taking offence at the word of faith and at what I have asserted, say, "If faith does everything, and by itself suffices for justification, why then are good works commanded? Are we then to take our ease and do no works, content with faith?" Not so, impious men, I reply; not so. That would indeed really be the case, if we were thoroughly and completely inner and spiritual persons; but that will not happen until the last day, when the dead shall be raised. As long as we live in the flesh, we are but beginning and making advances in that which shall be completed in a future life. On this account the Apostle calls that which we have in this life the firstfruits of the Spirit (Rom. viii. 23). In future we shall have the tenths, and the fullness of the Spirit. To this part belongs the fact I have stated before: that the Christian is the servant of all and subject to all. For in that part in which he is free he does no works, but in that in which he is a servant he does all works. Let us see on what principle this is so.

Although, as I have said, inwardly, and according to the spirit, a man is amply enough justified by faith, having all that he requires to have, except that this very faith and abundance ought to increase from day to day, even till the future life, still he remains in this mortal life upon earth, in which it is necessary that he should rule his own body and have intercourse with men. Here then works begin; here he must not take his ease; here he must give heed to exercise his body by fastings, watchings, labour, and other regular discipline, so that it may be subdued to the spirit, and obey and conform itself to the inner man and faith, and not rebel against them nor hinder them, as is its nature to do if it is not kept under. For the inner man, being conformed to God and created after the image of God through faith, rejoices and delights itself in Christ, in whom such blessings have been conferred on it, and hence has only this task before it: to serve God with joy and for nought in free love.

But in doing this he comes into collision with that contrary will in his own flesh, which is striving to serve the world and to seek its own gratification. This the spirit of faith cannot and will not bear, but applies itself with cheerfulness and zeal to keep it down and restrain it, as Paul says, "I delight in the law of God after the inward man; but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin" (Rom. vii. 22, 23), and again, "I keep under my body, and bring it unto subjection, lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway" (1 Cor. ix. 27), and "They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts" (Gal. v. 24).

These works, however, must not be done with any notion that by them a man can be justified before God--for faith, which alone is righteousness before God, will not bear with this false notion--but solely with this purpose: that the body may be brought into subjection, and be purified from its evil lusts, so that our eyes may be turned only to purging away those lusts. For when the soul has been cleansed by faith and made to love God, it would have all things to be cleansed in like manner, and especially its own body, so that all things might unite with it in the love and praise of God. Thus it comes that, from the requirements of his own body, a man cannot take his ease, but is compelled on its account to do many good works, that he may bring it into subjection. Yet these works are not the means of his justification before God; he does them out of disinterested love to the service of God; looking to no other end than to do what is well-pleasing to Him whom he desires to obey most dutifully in all things.  OK, Luther seems at this point to be clarifying his views a bit.  If I am understanding him correctly, what he seems to be saying is that faith alone is all that we need to be justified, to be right with God, because faith is true righteousness.  If we have faith, we have true love to God and so are righteous internally.  That fits with how he was talking about faith earlier.  (Luther is articulating a very strange view from a Protestant perspective, for instead of talking about imputed righteousness he seems to be saying that the righteousness by which we are justified is internal--it is not that God imputes righteousness to us because we have faith, but rather that faith is our righteousness, and is imputed to us as such because that's what it really is.)

Since faith includes all inward obedience to God and thus fully justifies us, we don't need to do any other good works, "outward works" like fasting, disciplining our body and appetites, etc., in order to be right with God.  But since faith involves loving God, we'll want to do these other things anyway, not to be justified or made right with God (for we already have complete justification without them), but in order to please the God that we love.

Hmmm . . . I find this problematic.  Perhaps Luther will clarify further later and assuage my concerns, but at this point I don't like where he seems to be going.  He seems to be suggesting that if I have inward faith, that's all that is required of me, and no other works are necessary.  I don't need to live a disciplined life, etc.; it is not required for my salvation.  I am totally right with God and thus have eternal life secured without these other things.  If I do them, it is only because I want to because I love God.  Now, I agree that love to God ought to be the primary motive for doing good works.  But, at the same time, the Bible requires us to recognize that good works are also necessary for my own standing before God.  Good works are not optional if we are to receive eternal life, but necessary.  As St. Paul put it, for example, in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."  We will not be judged merely on the basis of whether or not we have had faith, but on the basis of all our works:  "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Corinthians 5:10).

Now, it is true that Luther has defined faith in a very broad way.  To him it seems to carry the idea of "love and supreme worship of God," which is indeed the heart of righteousness.  Like I said earlier, if he is simply so broadly defining "faith" as to include all love to God and all obedience to his commands, then sure, we could say that faith alone suffices, for this would be equivalent to saying that obedience to God alone suffices, which is of course true.  But if this is Luther's meaning, why, then, does he keep contrasting "faith" with "good works," suggesting that we only need faith and that we don't therefore have any requirement to do other good works, like fasting and bodily discipline?  Luther says that if we have faith, that's all we need, and yet we'll want to add to it things like fasting and bodily discipline because we'll want to please God with our bodies even though we aren't required to in order to be right with him.  Is Luther, then, saying that using our bodies in a way that is pleasing to God is not something God requires of us to be in good standing with him, but is something optional that we can do if we want to?  It sounds like that is what he is saying; and if he is, I have great problems with it, for according to Scripture, reason, and the Catholic faith, we are morally required to live in a way that is pleasing to God in all areas of our life.  It is never optional for us to please God rather than to displease him.  If we deliberately choose to live in a way that is displeasing to God, we will certainly not be in good standing with him.  Rather, we will be rejected as an unrepentant sinner.  Obedience to God is never optional, for God cannot do away with his moral law.  To say that obedience to God is optional is to fall into the heresy of antinomianism.  But we'll see if Luther further clarifies below.

On this principle every man may easily instruct himself in what measure, and with what distinctions, he ought to chasten his own body. He will fast, watch, and labour, just as much as he sees to suffice for keeping down the wantonness and concupiscence of the body. But those who pretend to be justified by works are looking, not to the mortification of their lusts, but only to the works themselves; thinking that, if they can accomplish as many works and as great ones as possible, all is well with them, and they are justified. Sometimes they even injure their brain, and extinguish nature, or at least make it useless. This is enormous folly, and ignorance of Christian life and faith, when a man seeks, without faith, to be justified and saved by works.  Certainly Luther is right to say that it is folly for us to attempt to do good works in order to gain God's favor as if we can produce righteousness from ourselves without the help of God's grace.  Rather, we must trust alone in Christ, receiving from him all the grace necessary to live a righteous life.  So there are two extremes we want to avoid:  We want to avoid the idea that we can produce our own righteousness from ourselves apart from God's grace.  This is the heresy of Pelagianism.  On the other hand, we want to avoid the idea that because we are relying on God's grace, that means that living righteously is no longer required of us or that we can be right with God without living righteously.  This is the heresy of antinomianism.  We want to affirm the middle ground here and say that we are required to live righteously, but that we can only do so through God's grace and so we must rely on him for all that we need as we strive to live righteously, and we must give him all the glory.  St. Paul puts it this way (Philippians 2:12-13):  "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."  Hopefully Luther is not warning us against Pelagianism only to fall into antinomianism.

To make what we have said more easily understood, let us set it forth under a figure. The works of a Christian man, who is justified and saved by his faith out of the pure and unbought mercy of God, ought to be regarded in the same light as would have been those of Adam and Eve in paradise and of all their posterity if they had not sinned. Of them it is said, "The Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it" (Gen. ii. 15). Now Adam had been created by God just and righteous, so that he could not have needed to be justified and made righteous by keeping the garden and working in it; but, that he might not be unemployed, God gave him the business of keeping and cultivating paradise. These would have indeed been works of perfect freedom, being done for no object but that of pleasing God, and not in order to obtain justification, which he already had to the full, and which would have been innate in us all.

So it is with the works of a believer. Being by his faith replaced afresh in paradise and created anew, he does not need works for his justification, but that he may not be idle, but may exercise his own body and preserve it. His works are to be done freely, with the sole object of pleasing God. Only we are not yet fully created anew in perfect faith and love; these require to be increased, not, however, through works, but through themselves.  Hmmm . . . Again, Luther seems to be saying that works other than faith are optional.  We don't have to do them, we aren't required to do them, whether we do them or not will not affect our standing before God, but we will do them anyway because we will want to in order to please God.  But this is false, because works are required.  We cannot be in right standing with God if we refuse to obey his commandments.

A bishop, when he consecrates a church, confirms children, or performs any other duty of his office, is not consecrated as bishop by these works; nay, unless he had been previously consecrated as bishop, not one of those works would have any validity; they would be foolish, childish, and ridiculous. Thus a Christian, being consecrated by his faith, does good works; but he is not by these works made a more sacred person, or more a Christian. That is the effect of faith alone; nay, unless he were previously a believer and a Christian, none of his works would have any value at all; they would really be impious and damnable sins.

True, then, are these two sayings: "Good works do not make a good man, but a good man does good works"; "Bad works do not make a bad man, but a bad man does bad works." Thus it is always necessary that the substance or person should be good before any good works can be done, and that good works should follow and proceed from a good person. As Christ says, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit" (Matt. vii. 18). Now it is clear that the fruit does not bear the tree, nor does the tree grow on the fruit; but, on the contrary, the trees bear the fruit, and the fruit grows on the trees.

As then trees must exist before their fruit, and as the fruit does not make the tree either good or bad, but on the contrary, a tree of either kind produces fruit of the same kind, so must first the person of the man be good or bad before he can do either a good or a bad work; and his works do not make him bad or good, but he himself makes his works either bad or good.

We may see the same thing in all handicrafts. A bad or good house does not make a bad or good builder, but a good or bad builder makes a good or bad house. And in general no work makes the workman such as it is itself; but the workman makes the work such as he is himself. Such is the case, too, with the works of men. Such as the man himself is, whether in faith or in unbelief, such is his work: good if it be done in faith; bad if in unbelief. But the converse is not true that, such as the work is, such the man becomes in faith or in unbelief. For as works do not make a believing man, so neither do they make a justified man; but faith, as it makes a man a believer and justified, so also it makes his works good.  So the idea here seems to be that if we have faith, we are "good people," righteous people.  If we don't have faith, we are unrighteous.  If we are good people, we will do good works; but if we are bad people, we will do bad works.  Again, Luther is defining faith in such a way as to suggest it stands for a general inward disposition of supreme love to God (because the man who trusts God completely must attribute supreme worth to him).  Defined that way, Luther is right to say that a man who loves God supremely is a righteous man, and, in a sense, he needs nothing else to make him righteous and so bring him into good standing with God.  (Again this is not at all friendly to an "imputed righteousness" view, is it?)  But, again, I am concerned about how Luther has drawn a line between inward faith and outward works, suggesting that only the former is needed but not the latter.  It is true that if we do not do the latter in the spirit of and from the motivation of the former we do not do the latter properly and in a way that is truly righteous in the highest sense; but the two cannot be separated.  The outward works are required just as much as the inward faith and love, because God has commanded them.  If God has commanded me specifically to properly discipline my body and its appetites (as he has), then, by definition, this is not optional.  I have to do this, and if I do not it will disqualify me from being a righteous person.  (Of course, we do not do these things perfectly in this life, but we must be striving, in St. Paul's words, to "put to death the deeds of the flesh" rather than lazily reveling in them.)  As Jesus said, "If a man love me, he will keep my words" (John 14:23).  Jesus did not say, "You don't actually have to keep my commandments, but, if you love me, you'll want to do it anyway even though it's optional."  By definition, commands are not optional.  It is great that Luther tries to soften the effect of what he is saying by emphasizing how people who have faith will just want to obey God in the area of outward obedience, but this does not remove the serious error of saying that obedience to God in outward things is not required or necessary for good standing with God.

Since then works justify no man, but a man must be justified before he can do any good work, it is most evident that it is faith alone which, by the mere mercy of God through Christ, and by means of His word, can worthily and sufficiently justify and save the person; and that a Christian man needs no work, no law, for his salvation; for by faith he is free from all law, and in perfect freedom does gratuitously all that he does, seeking nothing either of profit or of salvation--since by the grace of God he is already saved and rich in all things through his faith--but solely that which is well-pleasing to God.  Luther is continuing to confirm that we have understood him correctly.  We are not required, in order to be saved or to be in right standing with God, to do good works.  Good works are optional, not required of us.  We gain nothing from them in terms of salvation.  I don't see how this can be understood in any other way than as an affirmation of the heresy of antinomianism.  Now, it is true that Luther does not say that nothing is required of us for salvation.  One thing is required: faith.  But beyond that, nothing is required, including, as he has told us thus far, bodily control and discipline.  To dispense with central commands given to us by God is to be guilty of antinomianism.

So, too, no good work can profit an unbeliever to justification and salvation; and, on the other hand, no evil work makes him an evil and condemned person, but that unbelief, which makes the person and the tree bad, makes his works evil and condemned. Wherefore, when any man is made good or bad, this does not arise from his works, but from his faith or unbelief, as the wise man says, "The beginning of sin is to fall away from God"; that is, not to believe. Paul says, "He that cometh to God must believe" (Heb. xi. 6); and Christ says the same thing: "Either make the tree good and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt" (Matt. xii. 33),--as much as to say, He who wishes to have good fruit will begin with the tree, and plant a good one; even so he who wishes to do good works must begin, not by working, but by believing, since it is this which makes the person good. For nothing makes the person good but faith, nor bad but unbelief.  So nothing matters in terms of our righteousness, right standing before God, or salvation, besides whether we have faith or unbelief.  All else is irrelevant.  No good works besides faith make us righteous, no evil works besides unbelief make us unrighteous.  So if I have faith but choose to totally neglect bodily discipline, in Luther's view this makes no difference to my righteous status.  Bodily discipline is not required.  Luther hastily adds that a man who has faith will want to pursue bodily discipline anyway, but still, it is not required.  If I were to decide not to pursue it, so long as I have faith I have everything I need to be righteous and for salvation.

It is certainly true that, in the sight of men, a man becomes good or evil by his works; but here "becoming" means that it is thus shown and recognised who is good or evil, as Christ says, "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matt. vii. 20). But all this stops at appearances and externals; and in this matter very many deceive themselves, when they presume to write and teach that we are to be justified by good works, and meanwhile make no mention even of faith, walking in their own ways, ever deceived and deceiving, going from bad to worse, blind leaders of the blind, wearying themselves with many works, and yet never attaining to true righteousness, of whom Paul says, "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof, ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. iii. 5, 7).

He then who does not wish to go astray, with these blind ones, must look further than to the works of the law or the doctrine of works; nay, must turn away his sight from works, and look to the person, and to the manner in which it may be justified. Now it is justified and saved, not by works or laws, but by the word of God--that is, by the promise of His grace--so that the glory may be to the Divine majesty, which has saved us who believe, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy, by the word of His grace.

From all this it is easy to perceive on what principle good works are to be cast aside or embraced, and by what rule all teachings put forth concerning works are to be understood. For if works are brought forward as grounds of justification, and are done under the false persuasion that we can pretend to be justified by them, they lay on us the yoke of necessity, and extinguish liberty along with faith, and by this very addition to their use they become no longer good, but really worthy of condemnation. For such works are not free, but blaspheme the grace of God, to which alone it belongs to justify and save through faith. Works cannot accomplish this, and yet, with impious presumption, through our folly, they take it on themselves to do so; and thus break in with violence upon the office and glory of grace.  So if a person does any good work with the intention of preserving a right standing before God or out of hope of reward of eternal life or because he believes it to be required by God and so necessary for his salvation and good moral standing, according to Luther he is sinning in pursuing the good work with such motives.  The only right motive to do good works from is the motive of doing them because we want to as we recognize that we do not have to.

Luther seems to be confusing two distinct things:  On the one hand, we have the idea that we must not seek to try to produce our own righteousness from ourselves without grace or attribute our righteousness ultimately to ourselves.  Rather, righteousness can only be attained as a gift of grace flowing from the sacrifice and merits of Christ.  We must therefore rely on Christ alone for all that we need in this area (as in all areas).  This is solid, central, orthodox doctrine.  But on the other hand, we have the idea that because our trust is to be wholly in God, we no longer have any requirement to live righteously by obeying God except the requirement to have faith.  This is antinomianism.  We must indeed look to God fully to receive the gift of righteousness rather than trying to produce it by ourselves and from ourselves, but at the same time we must recognize that the requirement of God's moral law that we must be righteous and live righteously can never be relaxed or disposed of.  We do not trust in Christ to save us by removing the requirement to live righteously, but we trust him to save us by making us righteous so that we can fulfill the requirement to live righteously.  These are two very different, diametrically opposed ideas.  What does the Scripture say?  "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Romans 8:1-4).  How does Christ save us from condemnation?  By disposing of the law so that we no longer have to obey it?  No, but by procuring for us the Spirit so that we can fulfill the requirements of the moral law.  "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law" (Romans 3:31).  The law and its requirements are not done away with in Christ's salvation, but our sin is done away with, so that we may be made righteous.

We do not then reject good works; nay, we embrace them and teach them in the highest degree. It is not on their own account that we condemn them, but on account of this impious addition to them and the perverse notion of seeking justification by them. These things cause them to be only good in outward show, but in reality not good, since by them men are deceived and deceive others, like ravening wolves in sheep's clothing.  We affirm good works, says Luther, so long as they are not considered necessary for right standing before God or for salvation.  Good works are wonderful, says Luther, very highly recommended!  But not required.

Now this leviathan, this perverted notion about works, is invincible when sincere faith is wanting. For those sanctified doers of works cannot but hold it till faith, which destroys it, comes and reigns in the heart. Nature cannot expel it by her own power; nay, cannot even see it for what it is, but considers it as a most holy will. And when custom steps in besides, and strengthens this pravity of nature, as has happened by means of impious teachers, then the evil is incurable, and leads astray multitudes to irreparable ruin. Therefore, though it is good to preach and write about penitence, confession, and satisfaction, yet if we stop there, and do not go on to teach faith, such teaching is without doubt deceitful and devilish. For Christ, speaking by His servant John, not only said, "Repent ye," but added, "for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. iii. 2).

For not one word of God only, but both, should be preached; new and old things should be brought out of the treasury, as well the voice of the law as the word of grace. The voice of the law should be brought forward, that men may be terrified and brought to a knowledge of their sins, and thence be converted to penitence and to a better manner of life. But we must not stop here; that would be to wound only and not to bind up, to strike and not to heal, to kill and not to make alive, to bring down to hell and not to bring back, to humble and not to exalt. Therefore the word of grace and of the promised remission of sin must also be preached, in order to teach and set up faith, since without that word contrition, penitence, and all other duties, are performed and taught in vain.

There still remain, it is true, preachers of repentance and grace, but they do not explain the law and the promises of God to such an end, and in such a spirit, that men may learn whence repentance and grace are to come. For repentance comes from the law of God, but faith or grace from the promises of God, as it is said, "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. x. 17), whence it comes that a man, when humbled and brought to the knowledge of himself by the threatenings and terrors of the law, is consoled and raised up by faith in the Divine promise. Thus "weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning" (Psalm xxx. 5). Thus much we say concerning works in general, and also concerning those which the Christian practises with regard to his own body.  Luther concedes that there are preachers in his day who preach repentance and grace, but he says they do not explain these things clearly or completely.

Lastly, we will speak also of those works which he performs towards his neighbour. For man does not live for himself alone in this mortal body, in order to work on its account, but also for all men on earth; nay, he lives only for others, and not for himself. For it is to this end that he brings his own body into subjection, that he may be able to serve others more sincerely and more freely, as Paul says, "None of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord" (Rom. xiv. 7, 8). Thus it is impossible that he should take his ease in this life, and not work for the good of his neighbours, since he must needs speak, act, and converse among men, just as Christ was made in the likeness of men and found in fashion as a man, and had His conversation among men.  So now we are expanding our discussion of "good works" to include not only bodily discipline, but also works towards the welfare of our neighbors.

Yet a Christian has need of none of these things for justification and salvation, but in all his works he ought to entertain this view and look only to this object--that he may serve and be useful to others in all that he does; having nothing before his eyes but the necessities and the advantage of his neighbour. Thus the Apostle commands us to work with our own hands, that we may have to give to those that need. He might have said, that we may support ourselves; but he tells us to give to those that need. It is the part of a Christian to take care of his own body for the very purpose that, by its soundness and well-being, he may be enabled to labour, and to acquire and preserve property, for the aid of those who are in want, that thus the stronger member may serve the weaker member, and we may be children of God, thoughtful and busy one for another, bearing one another's burdens, and so fulfilling the law of Christ.  So seeking the good of our neighbors and so "fulfilling the law of Christ" is not required for our salvation or necessary for good standing before God.  It is good to seek the good of our neighbors; Luther highly recommends it.  But it is not required.  Only faith is required.  So now we know that "faith," though it implies a supreme love and valuing of God, does not include within its definition works of bodily discipline or works by which we serve our neighbors.  If Luther had defined "faith" to include all good works required by God, he would be free from the charge of antinomianism (though his language would be extremely idiosyncratic).  But he clearly doesn't.  "Faith" for him includes love to God, but it doesn't include obedience to all the commandments of God.  It does not include bodily discipline.  It does not include service to our neighbors.  And yet it alone, by itself, without these other things, makes us totally righteous and acceptable to God.  It is all that God requires.  So long as we have it, we are saved, nothing else being necessary.  We may (and Luther says we will) want to perform these other optional things--bodily discipline, service to neighbors--but we don't have to.  They are optional.  In fact, in that first sentence in this paragraph Luther makes it clear that it is wrong to engage in bodily discipline or service to our neighbors with any view towards being acceptable to God or attaining eternal life.  We must hold that we have acceptance with God and salvation regardless of whether or not we serve our neighbors or engage in bodily discipline, so long as we have faith, and so our only possible motive for doing these things will be a desire to do them for their own sake apart from any self-interested concern.

Now, I agree that we ought to love God, love and serve our neighbors, engage in bodily discipline, and obey all the other commands of God primarily out of love to God and our neighbor and not self-interest.  A person whose sole or primary motive in doing these things is self-interest is not a true Christian in his heart.  But, at the same time, we ought, and it is natural, to have concern for our own welfare also, and we ought to recognize that being righteous and obeying God is also necessary for our own welfare (both temporal and eternal--for those who do not live righteously will not inherit the kingdom of God), and so self-interest ought to be a lesser motivation in our obedience to God.  It is proper to expect to be rewarded by God for living righteously.  That is why the biblical writers so often work to motivate us to live righteously by reminding us that we will be judged, that there will be a judgment in which those who have lived well will be rewarded with eternal life and those who have lived wickedly will be punished with everlasting death.  2 Corinthians 5:9-11:  "Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men."  Why do we labor, according to St. Paul?  We labor so that we may be accepted of God, for he will judge us in the end according to our works.  If I were to attempt to list all biblical passages which make this basic point, I would probably have to double the length of this commentary!  So Luther is just plain wrong to say that living righteously in obedience to God's commands, including his commands to serve our neighbors, is unnecessary for salvation.  It is indeed most necessary.  And he is wrong to say that we ought not to be motivated by our own interest to live righteously.  We ought indeed to be so motivated, but our motive of self-interest should be subordinate to our motive of pleasing God and serving our neighbors.

Luther's views on these points were well condemned by the Council of Trent.  See, for example, Canons 19, 20, and 31 of the "Decree on Justification":

CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema. 

CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema. 

CANON XXI.-If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema. 

CANON XXXI.-If any one saith, that the justified sins when he performs good works with a view to an eternal recompense; let him be anathema.

Now, let's be clear here, for Luther is right--it is very important to understand these issues accurately.  We cannot attain righteousness before God by our own efforts and works, for we are sinners.  That's why we need Christ--we have no righteousness of our own!  It is the heresy of Pelagianism to say that I can produce my own righteousness and thus make myself acceptable to God on my own.  We must receive righteousness from God as a free gift.  We must not try to work for it or earn it, but receive it by faith alone (that is, trust in Christ alone ultimately and not at all in ourselves).  If this is all Luther was saying, there would be no problem.  Trent said the same (in the same "Decree on Justification"):

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. 

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema. 

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

In Chapter 8, Trent says,

And whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

So the Catholic Church has no problem with the idea that justification cannot be earned but must be received as a gift of grace.  She teaches the same thing, and has always taught it.  But Luther goes further and says that if we trust Christ, we don't even need righteousness anymore, at least in some areas.  All we need is faith, and then God will fully accept us whether we live righteously in other areas or not.  Here's the difference:  The Catholic Church teaches that Christ came to save us from our sins by freeing us from them and making us righteous, giving us a righteousness which we can then live in and be holy before God, obeying his commandments.  Luther says that Christ came to save us by making it no longer required for us to obey all the commandments of God so long as we have faith (as well as to give us faith).  In the Catholic view, righteousness is still required, but we cannot produce it on our own; we need Christ to merit by his life, death, and resurrection grace by which we are made righteous and enabled to live in obedience to God.  In Luther's view, Christ's coming seems to have fundamentally changed God's moral standards:  Before, God required obedience to all of his law.  Now, he only requires of us faith (which he himself gives to us) and all else is optional, so that it will arise spontaneously out of us.

Luther's view here differs markedly and crucially from later Reformed thought as well.  Consider, for example, the words of Francis Turretin, the great Reformed scholastic theologian of the 17th century.  He proposes the question, "Are good works necessary to salvation?"  His response?  "We affirm."  He goes on to explain:

Hence it is evident that the question here does not concern the necessity of merit, causality, and efficiency—whether good works are necessary to effect salvation or to acquire it by right. (For this belongs to another controversy, of which hereafter). Rather the question concerns the necessity of means, of presence and of connection or order—Are they required as the means and way for possessing salvation? This we hold. . . . 

We also hold that it should be pressed against the license of the Epicureans so that although works may be said to contribute nothing to the acquisition of our salvation, still they should be considered necessary to the obtainment of it, so that no one can be saved without them–that thus our religion may be freed from those most foul calumnies everywhere cast mot [sic] unjustly upon it by the Romanists (as if it were the mistress of impiety and the cushion of carnal licentiousness and security).  (Taken from the Theologia website--emphases removed.)

Turretin denies that good works can earn salvation from God, but he affirms that nevertheless they are necessary to obtain eternal salvation.  They are required of us, and our eternal salvation does depend on them.  The Westminster Confession, that premier Reformed document, makes the same point:

The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it: neither doth Christ, in the gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.  (19:5--footnotes removed) 

Although repentance be not to be rested in, as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God’s free grace in Christ; yet is it of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.  (15:3--footnotes removed)

Because obedience to God is still necessary for Christians, it is appropriate to recognize that fact and be motivated by fear of judgment and desire for reward to do good works:

Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs, and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin;  together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law, as a covenant of works. So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and not under grace.  (19:6--footnotes removed) 

As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin, and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity; so will He have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.  (33:3)

If our good works are not necessary for salvation, and it is a sin to be motivated to do good works by self-interested desire to avoid punishment and obtain reward, then concern regarding the Last Judgment cannot be a proper motivator to us to avoid sin and do good.  Fear of judgment should drive us to faith, according to Luther, but it cannot motivate us to do good works or else our good works would be sinful and not really good works at all.  So Luther's antinomianism is not only heresy from a Catholic point of view, but from a Reformed point of view as well.  If the Reformed wonder why Catholics often confuse their view with antinomianism, they should consider that it may partly have something to do with their associations with Luther!

Here is the truly Christian life, here is faith really working by love, when a man applies himself with joy and love to the works of that freest servitude in which he serves others voluntarily and for nought, himself abundantly satisfied in the fulness and riches of his own faith.  Admittedly, what Luther proposes here sounds very appealing and freeing.  "Stop worrying about obeying God.  You don't have to anymore!  Christ has brought salvation, and now all you have to do is trust him!  Nothing can hurt you, whether you live righteously or sinfully.  You can just relax!  And once you do, once you stop worrying about your standing before God, you'll find that you'll want to please him by obeying his commands!  You'll do those good works all right, but in a new, free way, out of spontaneous love rather than out of servile fear!"

There is some important truth to this, but it is mixed with fatal error (from both a Catholic and a Reformed point of view).  It is true that we should, in a sense, relax.  We are helpless in ourselves, so we should trust God for all that we need.  We should rely on his grace, a grace which God wants to give us.  We should not live obsessively, always worrying about whether we are in or out of a right standing before God.  We should relax and be confident.  God has told us what we need to do, and he has promised us strength to do it by his grace.  All we have to do is choose to live in love to God, seeking to follow his commandments.  It is not necessary for salvation that we become perfect in this life!  All we are required to do is do the best we reasonably can, in reliance on God's grace.  If we are tempted to turn away from God into mortal sin (that is, sin to such a degree that we completely reject God and stop living in love to him), we should pray for strength, remember the goodness of God, and resist.  If we fall into mortal sin, let us quickly repent and God will forgive us.  If we are tempted to venial sins (that is, sin that does not involve the complete turning away of our will from God so that we are still living generally a life of love to him), let us pray for grace and resist.  If we fall, let us repent and pray for strength for the future.  Let us seek to know the God we serve, for the more we know him, the more we will love him and hate sin which displeases him.  Let us recognize that he will keep us if we do not reject him, that we cannot be lost by mistake but only by deliberate choice.  And let us give God all the glory for our salvation!  So Luther is right:  We should relax and trust God.  If we stop obsessing, we can be more motivated by deep love for God and for our neighbor in all that we do, while still being motivated also by a healthy, non-obsessive, and realistic self-interest.  But Luther is wrong to try to convince us that relaxing and trusting God means giving up any belief that our living righteously truly matters to our own welfare.  There are ways of non-obsessively diving a car while still recognizing that bad things will happen if you decide to ram into a brick wall at 100 MPH.  Trying to get people to drive non-obsessively by convincing them that it doesn't matter to their welfare if they drive into a brick wall is not a good plan, for it removes an important motive reality has put in place to not do something like that!  Luther says that we will want to serve God out of spontaneous love even though we don't have to, but if we don't have to, if God cares so little about our obedience that it doesn't affect our standing with him one way or another whether we obey him or not, then I think it will be hard to maintain a belief that it really matters to ourselves or to God if we obey him.  And once that idea seeps into our thinking, we are not going to be living lives of obedience to God!  So Luther's idea of all these people running around spontaneously obeying God because they don't have to sounds nice, but in reality I think his theoretical antinomianism is going to naturally result in practical antinomianism (despite his intentions).

And notice another thing as well:  Remember that in Luther's view, we are not completely off the hook in terms of our personal requirements.  We are still required to have faith!  Now, for a soul that is seeking a system in which he really, truly, doesn't have to do anything anymore so that he can feel completely secure, this seems like quite a cheat!  So I don't have to serve my neighbor, or engage in bodily discipline, but I do still have to have faith?  But what if I don't have enough faith?  What if I lose my faith in the future?  What if I can't get myself to trust God, but slip into trusting myself?!  How do I know I'm really trusting God and not myself?!!! . . . And down we go into obsessiveness once again.  It turns out I really can't be secure, for there is still something I must do, and so, looking at things the way Luther does, I still have to trust myself and depend on my own works (the work of having and maintaining faith) in order to be right with God.  I can't just trust him and let go, because he still requires something of me as a condition for his favor.  So while Luther has perhaps made things easier in some ways, he hasn't really solved the problem he seems to have set out to solve.  If antinomianism is the solution to our problems, well, Luther just wasn't quite antinomian enough . . . 

And consider as well Luther's insistence that all people who have faith will spontaneously do good works.  So what if I don't find myself spontaneously leaping up to do good works sometimes?  Well, I might start to wonder if I have real faith.  So how can I be sure I have real faith?  I guess I'd better get doing those good works!  So the necessity of good works slips back in the back door for practical purposes anyway, leaving us to wonder:  What really is the point of all of this new theology, anyway? Has anything been gained over and above Catholic theology, even for those seeking to flee God's law in order to quiet their own overly-obsessive consciences?

Thus, when Paul had taught the Philippians how they had been made rich by that faith in Christ in which they had obtained all things, he teaches them further in these words: "If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others" (Phil. ii. 1-4).

In this we see clearly that the Apostle lays down this rule for a Christian life: that all our works should be directed to the advantage of others, since every Christian has such abundance through his faith that all his other works and his whole life remain over and above wherewith to serve and benefit his neighbour of spontaneous goodwill.  Since we don't need to do good works for our own salvation, we can do them solely for the advantage of others.  It sounds good, but it's a false dichotomy to force a choice between acting out of love to others or self-interest.  The orthodox view is that we should act primarily out of love to God, secondarily out of love to our neighbor and to ourselves.  And we should be willing to put others ahead of ourselves, which really means putting others above the other "things" in life (food, money, whatever) that we value.

I ought not to drive off a cliff.  Why not?  First, out of love to God and respect for his authority over my life.  Secondly, out of love to my fellow humans, such as family and friends, who would be harmed by my death.  And finally, out of love to myself and my own life, because each of us is valuable, made in the image of God, and our lives are valuable too; and out of love to my own spiritual welfare also, for suicide is a sin that, if done with full knowledge, awareness, premeditation, etc., can put us at odds with God and send us to judgment.  Luther would have us play up the motive of love to God and our neighbor by denying that driving off a cliff is harmful to ourselves!  But all this really does is make one wonder why driving off a cliff is really a big deal to anyone at all.

To this end he brings forward Christ as an example, saying, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death" (Phil. ii. 5-8). This most wholesome saying of the Apostle has been darkened to us by men who, totally misunderstanding the expressions "form of God," "form of a servant," "fashion," "likeness of men," have transferred them to the natures of Godhead and manhood. Paul's meaning is this: Christ, when He was full of the form of God and abounded in all good things, so that He had no need of works or sufferings to be just and saved--for all these things He had from the very beginning--yet was not puffed up with these things, and did not raise Himself above us and arrogate to Himself power over us, though He might lawfully have done so, but, on the contrary, so acted in labouring, working, suffering, and dying, as to be like the rest of men, and no otherwise than a man in fashion and in conduct, as if He were in want of all things and had nothing of the form of God; and yet all this He did for our sakes, that He might serve us, and that all the works He should do under that form of a servant might become ours.

Thus a Christian, like Christ his Head, being full and in abundance through his faith, ought to be content with this form of God, obtained by faith; except that, as I have said, he ought to increase this faith till it be perfected. For this faith is his life, justification, and salvation, preserving his person itself and making it pleasing to God, and bestowing on him all that Christ has, as I have said above, and as Paul affirms: "The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God" (Gal. ii. 20). Though he is thus free from all works, yet he ought to empty himself of this liberty, take on him the form of a servant, be made in the likeness of men, be found in fashion as a man, serve, help, and in every way act towards his neighbour as he sees that God through Christ has acted and is acting towards him. All this he should do freely, and with regard to nothing but the good pleasure of God, and he should reason thus:--

Lo! my God, without merit on my part, of His pure and free mercy, has given to me, an unworthy, condemned, and contemptible creature all the riches of justification and salvation in Christ, so that I no longer am in want of anything, except of faith to believe that this is so. For such a Father, then, who has overwhelmed me with these inestimable riches of His, why should I not freely, cheerfully, and with my whole heart, and from voluntary zeal, do all that I know will be pleasing to Him and acceptable in His sight? I will therefore give myself as a sort of Christ, to my neighbour, as Christ has given Himself to me; and will do nothing in this life except what I see will be needful, advantageous, and wholesome for my neighbour, since by faith I abound in all good things in Christ.  So just as Christ did not "raise Himself above us and arrogate to Himself power over us, though He might lawfully have done so," but instead chose to serve us, so we should not neglect to live a life of good works, though we might lawfully do so (for these are no longer required and don't affect our relationship with God or our salvation).  Luther tries hard to play up the motivation to do good works, but he thinks he must do so at the expense of the requirement to do good works.

Thus from faith flow forth love and joy in the Lord, and from love a cheerful, willing, free spirit, disposed to serve our neighbour voluntarily, without taking any account of gratitude or ingratitude, praise or blame, gain or loss. Its object is not to lay men under obligations, nor does it distinguish between friends and enemies, or look to gratitude or ingratitude, but most freely and willingly spends itself and its goods, whether it loses them through ingratitude, or gains goodwill. For thus did its Father, distributing all things to all men abundantly and freely, making His sun to rise upon the just and the unjust. Thus, too, the child does and endures nothing except from the free joy with which it delights through Christ in God, the Giver of such great gifts.

You see, then, that, if we recognize those great and precious gifts, as Peter says, which have been given to us, love is quickly diffused in our hearts through the Spirit, and by love we are made free, joyful, all-powerful, active workers, victors over all our tribulations, servants to our neighbour, and nevertheless lords of all things. But, for those who do not recognise the good things given to them through Christ, Christ has been born in vain; such persons walk by works, and will never attain the taste and feeling of these great things. Therefore just as our neighbour is in want, and has need of our abundance, so we too in the sight of God were in want, and had need of His mercy. And as our heavenly Father has freely helped us in Christ, so ought we freely to help our neighbour by our body and works, and each should become to other a sort of Christ, so that we may be mutually Christs, and that the same Christ may be in all of us; that is, that we may be truly Christians.

Who then can comprehend the riches and glory of the Christian life? It can do all things, has all things, and is in want of nothing; is lord over sin, death, and hell, and at the same time is the obedient and useful servant of all. But alas! it is at this day unknown throughout the world; it is neither preached nor sought after, so that we are quite ignorant about our own name, why we are and are called Christians. We are certainly called so from Christ, who is not absent, but dwells among us--provided, that is, that we believe in Him and are reciprocally and mutually one the Christ of the other, doing to our neighbour as Christ does to us. But now, in the doctrine of men, we are taught only to seek after merits, rewards, and things which are already ours, and we have made of Christ a taskmaster far more severe than Moses.  "But alas! it is at this day unknown throughout the world."  Well, yes, since it is a heresy but recently invented by Luther.  Luther creates a false dichotomy:  Either you agree with him and teach that good works are not required, or you must be teaching that we don't have to trust in Christ for salvation but instead should try to earn it for ourselves by our own good works.  The Catholic view puts forward a third alternative:  We should trust Christ entirely for our righteousness and not try to produce it from ourselves, and then we should live out that righteousness, recognizing its necessity for a right relationship with God.

The Blessed Virgin beyond all others, affords us an example of the same faith, in that she was purified according to the law of Moses, and like all other women, though she was bound by no such law and had no need of purification. Still she submitted to the law voluntarily and of free love, making herself like the rest of women, that she might not offend or throw contempt on them. She was not justified by doing this; but, being already justified, she did it freely and gratuitously. Thus ought our works too to be done, and not in order to be justified by them; for, being first justified by faith, we ought to do all our works freely and cheerfully for the sake of others.  So, like Mary, who engaged in ritual purification even though she didn't have to, as "she was bound by no such law and had no need" of it, so we should do good works, even though we have no need to do so, as we are bound by no requirement to do so.  Luther makes his antinomianism more unmistakable with every paragraph.  We are not bound by the moral law, as Christ has set us free from it.  We don't have to live righteously anymore, disciplining our lives or loving our neighbors.  But we should do it anyway, as a gratuity.

Notice also, by the way, Luther's belief in the immaculateness of the Blessed Virgin at this point in his life.

St. Paul circumcised his disciple Timothy, not because he needed circumcision for his justification, but that he might not offend or contemn those Jews, weak in the faith, who had not yet been able to comprehend the liberty of faith. On the other hand, when they contemned liberty and urged that circumcision was necessary for justification, he resisted them, and would not allow Titus to be circumcised. For, as he would not offend or contemn any one's weakness in faith, but yielded for the time to their will, so, again, he would not have the liberty of faith offended or contemned by hardened self-justifiers, but walked in a middle path, sparing the weak for the time, and always resisting the hardened, that he might convert all to the liberty of faith. On the same principle we ought to act, receiving those that are weak in the faith, but boldly resisting these hardened teachers of works, of whom we shall hereafter speak at more length.  We should do good works to help others, but we must not do them as if we are required to do so.

Christ also, when His disciples were asked for the tribute money, asked of Peter whether the children of a king were not free from taxes. Peter agreed to this; yet Jesus commanded him to go to the sea, saying, "Lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth thou shalt find a piece of money; that take, and give unto them for Me and thee" (Matt. xvii. 27).

This example is very much to our purpose; for here Christ calls Himself and His disciples free men and children of a King, in want of nothing; and yet He voluntarily submits and pays the tax. Just as far, then, as this work was necessary or useful to Christ for justification or salvation, so far do all His other works or those of His disciples avail for justification. They are really free and subsequent to justification, and only done to serve others and set them an example.  So just as Christ did not really have to pay the tax, but did so anyway, so we should do good works for the good of others, even though we don't have to.  As Christ was exempt from paying the tax, so we are exempt from obedience to the moral law.

Such are the works which Paul inculcated, that Christians should be subject to principalities and powers and ready to every good work (Titus iii. 1), not that they may be justified by these things--for they are already justified by faith--but that in liberty of spirit they may thus be the servants of others and subject to powers, obeying their will out of gratuitous love.  We don't have any requirement to obey the civil authorities or to be ready to every good work, but we should do it anyway as a gratuity.

Such, too, ought to have been the works of all colleges, monasteries, and priests; every one doing the works of his own profession and state of life, not in order to be justified by them, but in order to bring his own body into subjection, as an example to others, who themselves also need to keep under their bodies, and also in order to accommodate himself to the will of others, out of free love. But we must always guard most carefully against any vain confidence or presumption of being justified, gaining merit, or being saved by these works, this being the part of faith alone, as I have so often said.  Yes, indeed he has.

Any man possessing this knowledge may easily keep clear of danger among those innumerable commands and precepts of the Pope, of bishops, of monasteries, of churches, of princes, and of magistrates, which some foolish pastors urge on us as being necessary for justification and salvation, calling them precepts of the Church, when they are not so at all. For the Christian freeman will speak thus: I will fast, I will pray, I will do this or that which is commanded me by men, not as having any need of these things for justification or salvation, but that I may thus comply with the will of the Pope, of the bishop, of such a community or such a magistrate, or of my neighbour as an example to him; for this cause I will do and suffer all things, just as Christ did and suffered much more for me, though He needed not at all to do so on His own account, and made Himself for my sake under the law, when He was not under the law. And although tyrants may do me violence or wrong in requiring obedience to these things, yet it will not hurt me to do them, so long as they are not done against God.  We are not under the moral law to be required to obey it, but we should do so anyway freely. 

From all this every man will be able to attain a sure judgment and faithful discrimination between all works and laws, and to know who are blind and foolish pastors, and who are true and good ones. For whatsoever work is not directed to the sole end either of keeping under the body, or of doing service to our neighbour--provided he require nothing contrary to the will of God--is no good or Christian work. Hence I greatly fear that at this day few or no colleges, monasteries, altars, or ecclesiastical functions are Christian ones; and the same may be said of fasts and special prayers to certain saints. I fear that in all these nothing is being sought but what is already ours; while we fancy that by these things our sins are purged away and salvation is attained, and thus utterly do away with Christian liberty. This comes from ignorance of Christian faith and liberty.  If anyone recommends any good works to be done with the purpose of advancing out spiritual life and relationship with God or out of concern for eternal life, he is not acting like a Christian.  No wonder Luther didn't think pretty much anyone was acting Christianly but himself, since his heresy was a new one that was not previously accepted by the Church.

This ignorance and this crushing of liberty are diligently promoted by the teaching of very many blind pastors, who stir up and urge the people to a zeal for these things, praising them and puffing them up with their indulgences, but never teaching faith. Now I would advise you, if you have any wish to pray, to fast, or to make foundations in churches, as they call it, to take care not to do so with the object of gaining any advantage, either temporal or eternal. You will thus wrong your faith, which alone bestows all things on you, and the increase of which, either by working or by suffering, is alone to be cared for. What you give, give freely and without price, that others may prosper and have increase from you and your goodness. Thus you will be a truly good man and a Christian. For what to you are your goods and your works, which are done over and above for the subjection of the body, since you have abundance for yourself through your faith, in which God has given you all things?  If you do good works, make sure you do not do them "with the object of gaining any advantage, either temporal or eternal. You will thus wrong your faith, which alone bestows all things on you."  So if you look towards the reward (as Moses did, for example--Hebrews 11:26), you are doing wickedly, not trusting alone in your faith.  It's funny that Luther's definition of how to have faith is actually diametrically opposed to the definition given in the Bible.  Hebrews 11:6 says that "without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."  In Luther's view, though, if you come to God believing that he is a rewarder of them that seek him, you have abandoned true faith!  Rewards and the fulfilling of requirements are too selfish for Luther, though the Bible clearly doesn't see things that way.  It's ironic that a man who so championed the clarity of Scripture and our need to follow it alone should so ignore something that is indeed quite plainly taught in it.

We give this rule: the good things which we have from God ought to flow from one to another and become common to all, so that every one of us may, as it were, put on his neighbour, and so behave towards him as if he were himself in his place. They flowed and do flow from Christ to us; He put us on, and acted for us as if He Himself were what we are. From us they flow to those who have need of them; so that my faith and righteousness ought to be laid down before God as a covering and intercession for the sins of my neighbour, which I am to take on myself, and so labour and endure servitude in them, as if they were my own; for thus has Christ done for us. This is true love and the genuine truth of Christian life. But only there is it true and genuine where there is true and genuine faith. Hence the Apostle attributes to charity this quality: that she seeketh not her own.

We conclude therefore that a Christian man does not live in himself, but in Christ and in his neighbour, or else is no Christian: in Christ by faith; in his neighbour by love. By faith he is carried upwards above himself to God, and by love he sinks back below himself to his neighbour, still always-abiding in God and His love, as Christ says, "Verily I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man" (John i. 51).

Thus much concerning liberty, which, as you see, is a true and spiritual liberty, making our hearts free from all sins, laws, and commandments, as Paul says, "The law is not made for a righteous man" (1 Tim. i. 9), and one which surpasses all other external liberties, as far as heaven is above earth. May Christ make us to understand and preserve this liberty. Amen. We are free from laws and commandments, which aren't intended to give requirements to those who have faith.

Finally, for the sake of those to whom nothing can be stated so well but that they misunderstand and distort it, we must add a word, in case they can understand even that. There are very many persons who, when they hear of this liberty of faith, straightway turn it into an occasion of licence. They think that everything is now lawful for them, and do not choose to show themselves free men and Christians in any other way than by their contempt and reprehension of ceremonies, of traditions, of human laws; as if they were Christians merely because they refuse to fast on stated days, or eat flesh when others fast, or omit the customary prayers; scoffing at the precepts of men, but utterly passing over all the rest that belongs to the Christian religion. On the other hand, they are most pertinaciously resisted by those who strive after salvation solely by their observance of and reverence for ceremonies, as if they would be saved merely because they fast on stated days, or abstain from flesh, or make formal prayers; talking loudly of the precepts of the Church and of the Fathers, and not caring a straw about those things which belong to our genuine faith. Both these parties are plainly culpable, in that, while they neglect matters which are of weight and necessary for salvation, they contend noisily about such as are without weight and not necessary.  Luther has just been saying over and over again in the plainest language that everything is now lawful for us who have faith, so it is a little hard for him to suddenly turn and pronounce to be blockheads anyone who thinks that that is what he has been saying.  Seek for the cause of the apparent stupidity of others in your own words, Luther!  We understand you quite well.  Or do you wish to take back now what you have been continually harping on and emphasizing through all these paragraphs?  We will see.

How much more rightly does the Apostle Paul teach us to walk in the middle path, condemning either extreme and saying, "Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth" (Rom. xiv. 3)! You see here how the Apostle blames those who, not from religious feeling, but in mere contempt, neglect and rail at ceremonial observances, and teaches them not to despise, since this "knowledge puffeth up." Again, he teaches the pertinacious upholders of these things not to judge their opponents. For neither party observes towards the other that charity which edifieth. In this matter we must listen to Scripture, which teaches us to turn aside neither to the right hand nor to the left, but to follow those right precepts of the Lord which rejoice the heart. For just as a man is not righteous merely because he serves and is devoted to works and ceremonial rites, so neither will he be accounted righteous merely because he neglects and despises them.

It is not from works that we are set free by the faith of Christ, but from the belief in works, that is from foolishly presuming to seek justification through works. Faith redeems our consciences, makes them upright, and preserves them, since by it we recognise the truth that justification does not depend on our works, although good works neither can nor ought to be absent, just as we cannot exist without food and drink and all the functions of this mortal body. Still it is not on them that our justification is based, but on faith; and yet they ought not on that account to be despised or neglected. Thus in this world we are compelled by the needs of this bodily life; but we are not hereby justified. "My kingdom is not hence, nor of this world," says Christ; but He does not say, "My kingdom is not here, nor in this world." Paul, too, says, "Though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh" (2 Cor. x. 3), and "The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God" (Gal. ii. 20). Thus our doings, life, and being, in works and ceremonies, are done from the necessities of this life, and with the motive of governing our bodies; but yet we are not justified by these things, but by the faith of the Son of God.  So it turns out that those blockheads Luther has criticized have understood him perfectly well, for here he states again what he's been saying all along:  Works aren't necessary or required of us, but we should do them anyway out of spontaneous and gratuitous love.  We understand very well that Luther doesn't want us to neglect good works, that he wants to promote them highly, that he hopes that all his faith-filled people will overflow with a superabundance of good works.  We understand that Luther loathes practical antinomianism.  He has made that crystal clear over and over again.  But we also understand that he has clearly and explicitly promoted theoretical antinomianism, and he has grounded the motivation to do good works solely in spontaneous or gratuitous love and not in any sense of requirement or necessity to do them.  We are not distorting what he has said when we question whether he can really be successful in the end in his attempt to separate theoretical antinomianism from practical antinomianism.  I've commented on this above.  Luther may hope and expect that people who don't believe that they have any requirement to do good works will be motivated to do them even more by that realization, but I fear that once a person comes to believe that God really doesn't care about his good works, seeing that they seem to be of no real importance with regard to his standing or eternal destiny, when he believes that God cares so little for his own moral law that he is quite ready to set it aside as pointless and to ignore all its decrees and to accept as full friends those it condemns as traitors and declares fit for eternal punishment, he is likely to quite reasonably draw the conclusion that it would be silly to waste time, effort, and energy caring about something that God is so ready to put aside and treat as worthless.  After all, we should see things as God sees them.  So if God is ready to throw away his moral law, why should we not be ready as well?  Thus, I believe there is a logical trajectory that leads from theoretical antinomianism to practical antinomianism, despite Luther's strong desire for it to be otherwise.

The Christian must therefore walk in the middle path, and set these two classes of men before his eyes. He may meet with hardened and obstinate ceremonialists, who, like deaf adders, refuse to listen to the truth of liberty, and cry up, enjoin, and urge on us their ceremonies, as if they could justify us without faith. Such were the Jews of old, who would not understand, that they might act well. These men we must resist, do just the contrary to what they do, and be bold to give them offence, lest by this impious notion of theirs they should deceive many along with themselves. Before the eyes of these men it is expedient to eat flesh, to break fasts, and to do in behalf of the liberty of faith things which they hold to be the greatest sins. We must say of them, "Let them alone; they be blind leaders of the blind" (Matt. xv. 14). In this way Paul also would not have Titus circumcised, though these men urged it; and Christ defended the Apostles, who had plucked ears of corn on the Sabbath day; and many like instances. Does that mean we might sometimes commit real sins in order to spite the theology of legalists?  I doubt Luther would agree with this, but the question does present itself somewhat naturally upon consideration of the language he uses here.

Or else we may meet with simple-minded and ignorant persons, weak in the faith, as the Apostle calls them, who are as yet unable to apprehend that liberty of faith, even if willing to do so. These we must spare, lest they should be offended. We must bear with their infirmity, till they shall be more fully instructed. For since these men do not act thus from hardened malice, but only from weakness of faith, therefore, in order to avoid giving them offence, we must keep fasts and do other things which they consider necessary. This is required of us by charity, which injures no one, but serves all men. It is not the fault of these persons that they are weak, but that of their pastors, who by the snares and weapons of their own traditions have brought them into bondage and wounded their souls when they ought to have been set free and healed by the teaching of faith and liberty. Thus the Apostle says, "If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth" (1 Cor. viii. 13); and again, "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. It is evil for that man who eateth with offence" (Rom. xiv. 14, 20).

Thus, though we ought boldly to resist those teachers of tradition, and though the laws of the pontiffs, by which they make aggressions on the people of God, deserve sharp reproof, yet we must spare the timid crowd, who are held captive by the laws of those impious tyrants, till they are set free. Fight vigorously against the wolves, but on behalf of the sheep, not against the sheep. And this you may do by inveighing against the laws and lawgivers, and yet at the same time observing these laws with the weak, lest they be offended, until they shall themselves recognise the tyranny, and understand their own liberty. If you wish to use your liberty, do it secretly, as Paul says, "Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God" (Rom. xiv. 22). But take care not to use it in the presence of the weak. On the other hand, in the presence of tyrants and obstinate opposers, use your liberty in their despite, and with the utmost pertinacity, that they too may understand that they are tyrants, and their laws useless for justification, nay that they had no right to establish such laws.

Since then we cannot live in this world without ceremonies and works, since the hot and inexperienced period of youth has need of being restrained and protected by such bonds, and since every one is bound to keep under his own body by attention to these things, therefore the minister of Christ must be prudent and faithful in so ruling and teaching the people of Christ, in all these matters, that no root of bitterness may spring up among them, and so many be defiled, as Paul warned the Hebrews; that is, that they may not lose the faith, and begin to be defiled by a belief in works as the means of justification. This is a thing which easily happens, and defiles very many, unless faith be constantly inculcated along with works. It is impossible to avoid this evil, when faith is passed over in silence, and only the ordinances of men are taught, as has been done hitherto by the pestilent, impious, and soul-destroying traditions of our pontiffs and opinions of our theologians. An infinite number of souls have been drawn down to hell by these snares, so that you may recognise the work of antichrist.  Only Luther seems to have gotten it right.  All the rest of "our pontiffs" and "our theologians" are a wicked mess and exemplars of antichrist.

In brief, as poverty is imperilled amid riches, honesty amid business, humility amid honours, abstinence amid feasting, purity amid pleasures, so is justification by faith imperilled among ceremonies. Solomon says, "Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?" (Prov. vi. 27). And yet as we must live among riches, business, honours, pleasures, feastings, so must we among ceremonies, that is among perils. Just as infant boys have the greatest need of being cherished in the bosoms and by the care of girls, that they may not die, and yet, when they are grown, there is peril to their salvation in living among girls, so inexperienced and fervid young men require to be kept in and restrained by the barriers of ceremonies, even were they of iron, lest their weak minds should rush headlong into vice. And yet it would be death to them to persevere in believing that they can be justified by these things. They must rather be taught that they have been thus imprisoned, not with the purpose of their being justified or gaining merit in this way, but in order that they might avoid wrong-doing, and be more easily instructed in that righteousness which is by faith, a thing which the headlong character of youth would not bear unless it were put under restraint.

Hence in the Christian life ceremonies are to be no otherwise looked upon than as builders and workmen look upon those preparations for building or working which are not made with any view of being permanent or anything in themselves, but only because without them there could be no building and no work. When the structure is completed, they are laid aside. Here you see that we do not contemn these preparations, but set the highest value on them; a belief in them we do contemn, because no one thinks that they constitute a real and permanent structure. If any one were so manifestly out of his senses as to have no other object in life but that of setting up these preparations with all possible expense, diligence, and perseverance, while he never thought of the structure itself, but pleased himself and made his boast of these useless preparations and props, should we not all pity his madness and think that, at the cost thus thrown away, some great building might have been raised?

Thus, too, we do not contemn works and ceremonies--nay, we set the highest value on them; but we contemn the belief in works, which no one should consider to constitute true righteousness, as do those hypocrites who employ and throw away their whole life in the pursuit of works, and yet never attain to that for the sake of which the works are done. As the Apostle says, they are "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. iii. 7). They appear to wish to build, they make preparations, and yet they never do build; and thus they continue in a show of godliness, but never attain to its power.

Meanwhile they please themselves with this zealous pursuit, and even dare to judge all others, whom they do not see adorned with such a glittering display of works; while, if they had been imbued with faith, they might have done great things for their own and others' salvation, at the same cost which they now waste in abuse of the gifts of God. But since human nature and natural reason, as they call it, are naturally superstitious, and quick to believe that justification can be attained by any laws or works proposed to them, and since nature is also exercised and confirmed in the same view by the practice of all earthly lawgivers, she can never of her own power free herself from this bondage to works, and come to a recognition of the liberty of faith.

We have therefore need to pray that God will lead us and make us taught of God, that is, ready to learn from God; and will Himself, as He has promised, write His law in our hearts; otherwise there is no hope for us. For unless He himself teach us inwardly this wisdom hidden in a mystery, nature cannot but condemn it and judge it to be heretical. She takes offence at it, and it seems folly to her, just as we see that it happened of old in the case of the prophets and Apostles, and just as blind and impious pontiffs, with their flatterers, do now in my case and that of those who are like me, upon whom, together with ourselves, may God at length have mercy, and lift up the light of His countenance upon them, that we may know His way upon earth and His saving health among all nations, who is blessed for evermore. Amen. In the year of the Lord MDXX.

Luther is a likable fellow.  At least, that is the impression I get of him.  I admire his emphasis on living out of love to God and our neighbor.  He says some beautiful things that, in a proper context, are very well said and of great benefit.  But his basic thesis, that we are free from the requirement to obey the moral law, is heretical for all that, even if his hope is that freedom from the requirements of the moral law will only serve to motivate us to obey it all the more.

So I see two interesting points of theology in Luther's treatise--his antinomian theories, and his view of justification which seems clearly to be opposed to the "imputed righteousness" idea later Protestants would adopt.  For Luther, at least at this point in his life, seems to think of the righteousness by which we are justified as inhering in us.  It is, in fact, nothing other than our faith itself.  When God imputes our faith to righteousness, Luther understands that to mean that God consider our faith to be our righteousness because it really is righteousness, because it honors God supremely in obedience to the First Commandment.  Considering both Catholic and later Reformed views, ironically, it seems that in a sense the Catholic view is closer to Luther's views here than the Reformed view, for while the Catholic and the Reformed agree in condemning Luther's antinomianism, yet Catholics agree with Luther's idea that the righteousness by which we are justified is not something that remains forever outside of us and is ultimately distinguished from our inward righteousness of regeneration and sanctification, while the Reformed view (in at least one construal of it) would draw a sharp dichotomy between inward sanctification and justifying righteousness.  They would not say that our faith is our righteousness by which we are justified, but they say that the righteousness by which we are justified is entirely outside of us and not in us at all, and that nothing in us has any efficacy to bring us into a right relationship with God.  Hear, for example, the Westminster Confession:

Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous, not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.  (11:1--footnotes removed, emphasis added)

 This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College,, generated on demand from ThML source.

For more on the issue of the nature of justification, see here, here, here, and here. For more on the general Catholic view of salvation, see here.

Published on the feast of St. Benedict