Jacobus Latomus prosecuted the case against William Tyndale, the English Reformed and Bible translator. The effort was not to convict him of heresy; that was already concluded. The effort was to reclaim him to Italian-orthodoxy. Amongst the Anglo-Italian head priests in England, however, it was felt that getting rid of Tyndale would "rid England of heresy." Here are the words from the Inquisitor from the Imperial Court of Charles V. Tyndale lost. There were no appeals. He was burned at the stake on 6 Oct 1536. However, what he started was never stopped. The West was forever changed.
By Jacob Latomus
His Three Books of Confutations Against William Tyndale
His Three Books of Confutations Against William Tyndale
Professor Emeritus of Classics and Ancient History, the University of Western
Australia, and to Dr Richard K. Moore, of the Baptist Theological College of Western
Australia, who requested it.
When William Tyndale lay in prison for the Lutheran heresy, he wrote a book on this theme, that faith alone justifies before God. In that book he strove to take away all merit of good works; for as the foundation and the key (as he called it) of the salutary understanding of Holy Writ he started from this premise, that God grants us everything freely through Christ, having meanwhile no regard to works. On this occasion I have written three books: in the first I took away the said key and put in its place another, following the Apostle Paul, from whose epistles and from other scriptural passages I shewed that in the faithful who have previously been freely justified, the merits of good works have a place, and that the just, advancing by these good works, earn the crown of glory to be granted by the Just Judge. Tyndale, having nothing that he could reasonably oppose to this reply, chose rather to seem to reply than to admit his error. Therefore he wrote a second book more fully on the same assertion and on other principal articles, indeed on virtually all articles in which the Lutherans contradict the sound doctrine of the Church. Hence it was necessary for me to reply to his examples and seasonings with which he supported his assertion in a second book, in which (if I am not mistaken) I clearly overthrew his bases of argument and shewed the absurdity of his opinion. To these was added a third, in which I briefly and clearly set out what should be thought on each point, for Tyndale made this request, that he should be able not merely to hear, but to read my opinions. I was unwilling to deny him anything, for although I feared that to him it would be of little good, I hoped that others might gain somewhat from it.
Louvain, June 12th 1542.
Jacob Latomus
Confutations Against William Tyndale
Book One
In order to satisfy your request, Tyndale, as far as the Lord shall grant, in which you ask me to reply in writing to the declaration and proof of your first assertion, in which you affirm that only faith justifies before God, it seems advantageous both for the clarity and the brevity of the discussion, that I should first set out those points on which we agree, so that only those on which we are at issue may be left for discussion. Therefore, as I estimate, we agree on this, that all Holy Writ is divinely inspired, and that every part thereof is true, as being divinely revealed. Secondly we agree on this, that predestination, election, vocation, and justification, by which men from being unjust [B] become just, and from being impious become pious, from being sinners become innocent, and by which in general terms remission of any sin takes place both as concerns the guilt and stain of it and as concerns the liability to eternal punishment - that these things, I say, occur freely and are not subject to human deserving. Thirdly we are at one on this, that the grace which is given to those who worthily receive the sacraments of baptism or penance is not subject to human merit, but is simply given freely by God through Christ from the merit of his Passion - a thing which manifestly appears in little children who are now baptized or formerly were circumcised; for since they lack the use of reason, it is plain that theM in no wise cooperate with God, who sanctifies them by the washing of regeneration.
Fourthly, as regards adults, we agree in this, that faith does not justify them unless they acknowledge their sin and confess that the law is just and that its Author is just, unless condemning themselves and their sins they flee to the refuge of Christ's blood so that they may freely receive from God not only mercy and the remission of sins, but also the spirit of grace and the strength to fulfil the law, &c. Fifthly, that the dogma [C] of those is false, who assert that an evil life can consist with the best faith, whether faith be understood as confidence or hope or sure expectation of good promised by God.
Sixthly we do not differ on this point, that you say that justifying faith is not simply any faith, but that faith which works through love, and that does not exist alone in the mind of the man justified or believing, but has companions both antecedent and following - antecedent being the fear of God and contrition and sorrow for one's sins, to which may be added the hope of forgiveness, while following are tolerance and meekness and compassion and the other fruits of Christ's Spirit. I have decided not to make it an issue that you seem to put faith before charity, when charity is the form and as it were the life of faith, as the Apostle says that the way of charity is more excellent than that of faith, and that there now abide these three, faith, hope, and charity, and that the greatest of these is charity. Setting that aside, or reserving it for another time, we agree in this, that a solitary faith, without the accompaniment of other virtues, does not justify.
[D] Seventhly we agree in this, that the Apostle in saying that man is justified by faith without the works of the Law (in Romans and Galatians, and wherever he says this) does not mean this only of the written law proper to the people of the Jews, i.e. ceremonial and judicial laws, but of moral laws which had their binding force not only from the law of Moses but from natural or written law, and that by the benefit of such laws men knew what was right action and what was sin, but that such knowledge did not suffice to fulfil the Law without the grace and spirit of Christ, and that this grace and spirit are given by Christ to whomsoever they are given. These are the points in which we do not disagree. Now having set out briefly in what matters we agree, we must next see what those are on which we disagree. First we do not agree on the 'key of the saving knowledge of Scripture', for you take that as being that faith alone in the mercy of God through Jesus Christ, through the grace of Christ, and through the works of Christ, without respect of any merit or goodness of our works, justifies us in the sight of God; and this opinion you repeatedly express. [f.183v.] Now in this view, since you take away all deserving of eternal life from all the saints except from Christ alone, on that ground I differ from you. You should not be offended if in this matter I believe Holy Writ and the Apostle Paul rather than I believe you, for Paul propounds a different key to Scripture and to its salutary understanding, particularly as concerns the understanding of the Law and the Prophets, namely conversion to the Lord. In 2 Cor. 3 [v.14] we read: For until this day remaineth the same vail, ...but when he shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Likewise 2 Tim. 3 [v.14]: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. In these two places Paul clearly teaches that faith in Christ is the key to the salutary understanding of the Law and the Prophets - faith, I say, not in this or that article, but catholic and orthodox, i.e. right and entire, certainly not some particular faith in something which is contrary to Scripture or to any part of it - of which nature is that key of yours so far as concerns that part in which you deny all merit of just men as regards [B] eternal life, except of Christ alone, as will appear below, where with Christ's favour we shall shew that this opinion belongs to infidelity; which infidelity (according to the same Apostle's meaning) closes the mind so that it does not see the glory of Christ. He says (2 Cor. 4 [v.3]): But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of the invisible God, should shine unto them. In the eleventh chapter of Luke [v.52] the lawyers are not rebuked for having taken away that key of yours which I have just shewn to be false, but because by false traditions they had taken from themselves and from others the true understanding of the Law and the Prophets, by which understanding of the Law and the Prophets, as by a key, they ought to have come themselves and to have drawn others to the knowledge and recognition of Christ then present. For the Law and the Prophets were a kind of key to understand the mystery of redemption given to the Jews, whence the Law has been called a schoolmaster [C] to bring us unto Christ [Gal. 3,24]. But the heathen and the stubborn Jews who do not understand the Law come contrariwise to the understanding of the Law and Prophets when they have previously accepted faith in Christ. For the figure and that which is figured mutually declare each other. Now if, as you write, you desire to be instructed, it is needful that you seek the truth with cautious solicitude, and that in reading the Scriptures you should not so much seek wherewith to strengthen your opinions and subvert those of others, as to understand what you are reading: and this the attentive reader of your writings will see that you are not yet doing. For example, you take something from the first chapter of Paul's epistle to the Romans: then with closed eyes you pass on to the third chapter, disregarding the second, in which there is matter that might make you change your mind, for in that chapter Paul plainly speaks of good works and of bad, and of what God will render to them in the day of judgement. He will render, says Paul [Rom. 2,6], to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life, and more which it would take too long to transcribe. Likewise you subjoin another passage from Paul's [second] epistle to the Corinthians which you think supports your dogma, but you omit the eighth and ninth chapters, in which Paul [D] strongly and instantly urges the Corinthians to be generous to the saintly poor, where among other things he says of the reward of this work: He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver, etc., where he shews that free-hearted giving of this kind has merit and rich reward in the sight of God. Again, when you had quoted what you chose from the epistle to the Galatians, you were unwilling to consider what is said in that same letter [6,6] concerning communication in good things: Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth in the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption, but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. I forbear to explain what is meant in this passage by sowing and reaping; for there is scarcely found one so ignorant of holy things as not to accept to sow as meaning to deserve and to reap as meaning to receive [F.184r.] according to desert. He continues: And let us not be weary in well doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. You deal likewise with other passages of Scripture, as in the Epistle to the Hebrew, which might have instructed you not only concerning faith, but also concerning works and their reward: in c.6 [v.10] he says: For God is not unrighteous to forget your works and labour of love, which ye have shewed towards his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. In the tenth chapter [v.35], after other matter be concludes: Cast nor away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward &c. In the second chapter [c.11 v.24] he says of Moses: By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter... for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. In the gospel of Matthew, after speaking of the blessings that are given freely by the Spirit, you failed to add the words [c.5 v.12], Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven, because that did not support your dogma. Later in the same sermon [c.6 v.6] Christ plainly teaches that the reward of alms and prayer and fasting is given by the Heavenly Father if works of this kind be rightly done in the way and to the end that [B] Christ prescribes: this you have omitted to consider. From these few examples (to omit innumerable others) it can be seen that, if you seek the truth with care and caution, you will receive sure teaching not only on faith, viz. that it justifies us, but also on works, viz. that they are deserving before God when they are done by men previously justified and sanctified by faith. Now since these sayings of Paul and Matthew are so plain that there can be no doubt in them, it is needful so to understand justifying faith in Paul that it does not prejudice works done as a result of faith working through love so far as concerns the power of deserving. The Apostle in his Epistle to the Romans proves by efficacious reasoning and by witness of Scripture that no works of nature or of the Law earned justification, and that therefore the Jews and the heathen in this respect are equal, that the former boast vainly of the Law, the latter of nature, when both owe their evangelical salvation to God's grace and both with the same right and in the same way have been made sons of Abraham, i.e. of the promise, since God who promised sons to Abraham, gathered believers from both those groups of whom Abraham was to be [C] the father, freely granting faith to both, and purifying the hearts of both by faith, so that no one should think that the first grace by which he believed and obtained the remission of sins was rendered to him in any way for his works, whether of nature or of the Law, but that the mouths of all should be closed and the whole world subjected to God, who enchained all in sin so that forgiveness should appear to be an unowed gift of God's free granting, not something earned by human justice or paid as a reward of merit by divine justice. Thus the Apostle's entire argument for faith and grace is directed against works going before, not following after, justification.
Likewise we disagree on this point, that you make no difference between works which precede first justification and those which follow it, insofar as concerns the power and efficacy of deserving before God, while I distinguish between them, as Holy Writ cornpels us to make a distinction between those works. Works going before do not earn justification, [D] but works going after deserve beatitude. Call the labourers, he says [Matth. 20,8], and give them their hire, speaking certainly of those already justified, who by grace have received the virtue of labouring that they should be worthy of their hire. Likewise the Lord has delivered his goods to his servants [Matth. 25,14], to one five talents, to another two, and to another one, and the Lord rewards those who have gained and increased their Lord's goods, but the slothful servant, who had not put his Lord's money to usury, He rebukes and condemns. This Christ openly says: does anyone dare to contradict it who wishes to be named and considered a Christian? Likewise we are at issue on this, that by subsequent works nothing is gained for a man justified by faith, because those works only declare, do not increase, the inner existing goodness. This you prove by a simile, viz. that the fruit declares the tree but does not make it either good or bad, and in this way you seek to reconcile Paul and James, saying that the former speaks of inward justification before God, the latter of outward justification before one's neighbour. On this ground you say that Abraham was not justified by [184v.] obedience in circumcising himself [Gen. c.17], and you infer that he was not justified before God by his obedience in offering Isaac [Gen. c.22]. I say, however, that Abraham was justified before God as well by inward faith as by outward works since first from being unjust he became just by faith, then from being just he became more just by subsequent works. That he was justified by obedience in offering Isaac you have the text Genesis c.22 [v.16], where we read: By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee ...because thou hast obeyed my voice. Observe that Abraham for his part accepted the promises, adding an oath [Gen. 24,3sq.] to mark the immutability of the divine decree, because he obeyed the voice of God commanding his only son to be offered up. This argument clearly disproves the distinction between inward justification before God and outward justification before one's neighbours, since this work of obedience justified Abraham before God also. Now that simile of the tree and its fruit does not square with inward virtue and its work. The corporal bearing of trees and animals weakens the one which bears, and the more it is multiplied, the more it consumes the strength of the one which bears or produces: [B] in what the mind brings forth it is otherwise, for it does not weaken, but rather strengthens and invigorates the one that bears, as may he peen in the sciences and the arts, in prudence and wisdom, which are strengthened. more firmly rooted, and increased by their own workings. In such things a better similitude is that of a fountain, which without detriment to itself produces a river or a lake. Hence John c.4 [v.14], speaking of the water of grace which Christ gives, says: It shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. In the seventh chapter [v.38], concerning the Holy Spirit which believers were to receive, Scripture is cited, saying: Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Likewise in this we are at issue: you say that we deserve nothing of God because he has no need of our works and they bring him no advantage, but that they are his gifts and that all their advantage returns to us. For I say that although God has no need of our good things, and all the good that we have or do, we have from him, and it benefits us, not him. nevertheless because we do them on his command or suggestion, freely and of our accord for [C] love of him, he has decided to reward us just as if he had needed our works and had drawn some advantage from them. In this way he values the works of mercy done to our neighbours as highly as if they had been done to him in his need: see Matth. c.25 [v.40]: Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me, where Christ the Judge declares that he has been fed, clothed, taken in, and visited, saying therefore, Come ye blessed &c. In Matth. 10 [v.41] we read: He that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward, and he that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet's reward. And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward. Do not these and like passages so plainly, so openly, and in so many ways declare God's will concerning future retribution in the life everlasting that there is no way of getting round them? Yet you, as if Scripture were silent on the matter, declare that God's granting everything freely for Christ's sake is to be taken as meaning that to those divinely chosen he grants nothing on account of their preceding merits; you think it is injurious to God and shews ingratitude in man if the latter should ask it [D] as a reward for his good actions. You claim as tending to confirm this view the form of prayer which we find in Scripture, where those praying do not allege their own merits, but say to God. 'For thy goodness, for thy mercy, for thy name, for thy word,' &c.; yet you do not attend to what is equally attested in Scripture, that God blesses Isaac and Jacob for the sake of Abraham, and that Moses in his prayer [Deut. 9,27] calls to mind God's servants Abraham, Isaac and Jacob when interceding for the people, and the Fourth Book of Kings, c.20 [11 Kings 20,6] declares that God spared, guarded, and freed the City of Jerusalem for his servant David's sake. Likewise Hezekiah in his prayer reminds God of his former merits, as we read in Isaiah c.38 [v.3]; nor is it difficult to collect from the Psalms prayers in which David alleges his good actions, as in the 7th, 15th, and 118th psalms, where he alleges [185r.] his innocence, his love of his enemies, his having made just judgements, and his having inclined his heart to the Lord's commandments because of retribution [Ps.118,112]. Certainly St Peter confidently says: Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? The Lord's reply is well known - Matth. 19 [v.28-30] and Mark 10 [v.29-31]. Do you think that all these witnesses of Scripture, and others innumerable besides, are overcome by that similitude which you adduce of the physician and the sick man drinking a bitter potion - the patient deserving nothing of the physician because the potion is of use to him who takes it, not to the physician? You claim that the situation is the same when a man carries out the commands or counsels of God, because keeping God's commands is beneficial to the man, not to God. You do not rightly define what it is to deserve of someone or before someone by any work or action; for retribution or reward or payment is earned not only by him who does somewhat that works to the advantage of him who gives the reward, but by him who does the latter's will or pleasure. Return to the similitude of the physician: let the physician be a king who decrees that in his realm any sick man who yields to his [B] only begotten son and promises to be cured by him will be the king's friend and share his table and his other goods, simply because the king is pleased so to decree. The sick man, obedient to the law, earns the inheritance and justly asks for it, not because in allowing himself to be cured and in voluntarily taking medicines suited to restoring health he did any good to the king, but because he carried out the king's will, meanwhile not neglecting his own advantage. If you do not admit the truth of this, you will not find out how to defend the merits of Jesus Christ the man (which you rightly extol and magnify as you ought): he came into this world in order to do his Father's will and to fulfil his Father's purpose, not to bestow any advantage on his Father, for the blessedness of the Father would suffer no diminution of the Son never became man nor ever suffered the cross; the Father could have found another way of freeing the elect from sin and of bringing them to predestined blessedness (this way pleased him as being more suitable for saving our misery); and in fact nowhere does grace appear more pure and unowed than in Christ the man. [C] For in things that have arisen in the course of time the greatest grace is that man has been joined to God in unity of person, as Augustine says, De Trinitate C.19: in lib.1, c.15 he explains this at length concerning the predestination of the saints. For that man, or rather that humanity before man was, did not in any way deserve to be taken up by God into unity of person. Note therefore that, just as the highest grace freely (and entirely freely) bestowed on Christ the man with fullness and not according to measure did not prevent his actions and passions from being meritorious - indeed they were meritorious precisely because they proceeded from Christ as a result of such exceeding grace -, so in the Christian justified by grace his following works are meritorious before God, and the greater the grace from which they proceed, the greater is their merit. For just as Christ is just and justifying, is wise and makes us wise, holy and makes us holy, so by his merit he makes us to merit, seeking and obtaining from the Father not only health and strength for our limbs, but also the power and efficacy for them to work together with God who works in us. It should not seem strange that God should take as participants in the divine operation those whom he has deigned to make participants in the divine nature. [D] The glory of Christ is made brighter if his virtue is bestowed upon others than if it were kept for him alone. Therefore in reply to your request I say and openly declare that in all good works the grace of God goes before, accompanies, and follows, and that without this grace there is no good work in man. If anyone should deny this and think that in order to do good it is enough to have knowledge of what is to be done - either the knowledge of the Law, or together with that knowledge the faculty of free will, even of a will freed from sin by its sole remission with the general concurrence (viz. that by which God as the first efficient cause concurs with all second causes according to his wisdom by which he comes firmly to the end and disposes all smoothly) even after obtaining remission of sins -, such a man falls off towards the infidelity and error of the Pelagians; for as Augustine rightly says, 'Neither knowledge of the divine law nor nature nor the e remission [f.185 v.] of sins is that grace which is given by Jesus Christ Our Lord, but beyond the aforesaid necessaries there is another grace necessary by which nature shall be healed and a man shall have strength to fulfil the Law, so that sin shall not rule over him.' This grace he designates in another passage, saying that it is the inspiration of love, by which we may do things known to us with holy love. This grace is obtained by faith, yet this faith to deserve it is freely given. From all these premises there does not follow your subsequent assertion that good works are not deserving before God of any good to be granted in this world or in the next, as is plain from what has been said, but both these things must be frankly admitted, that without God's grace we can neither believe in God nor perform any good work, and that when faith has been received and grace has been granted by faith (which is properly love), then we can do good works and by good works earn the reward of life everlasting, because it is needful that he who approaches God should believe that God is and that he rewards those who seek him.
What I have said is not at variance with Luke 15 [c. 17 v.10]: When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded [B] you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do. For the purpose of this writing is to shew that because of his condition of servitude a servant ought to be humble and not to puff himself up in pride against his master, because by serving well he has done only that which it was his duty to do in respect of his position as a servant; yet it is still consistent with this that a good master should bestow the grant of liberty or some other boon on one who serves him well as a reward for good service freely given. That this is the meaning of the passage the very words make clear. Likewise Christ does not simply use as servants those men who by reason of their creation are his servants, but he makes his servants into friends and sons by the adoption of grace, as a result of which they have a right to the inheritance to which they rightly aspire. For if they are children, then heirs, says the Apostle [Rom. 8,17], heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. Also Luke 22 [v.28]: Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father has appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom. It is not for a servant, in his capacity as servant, to sit at his master's table, but to attend upon his master as he dines, as in the parable [C] of the servant returning from the field [Luke 17,7], to which the passage quoted above is subjoined; yet the Father and the Son have so appointed, that the servant, taken up to be a son, shall share the table and the kingdom. Here we must consider that he who declares that God makes no return for merits seems to be denying that God is a just judge who returns or bestows reward for good works, and thus he goes against Scripture: see Ezekiel 18 [v.5ff.], where he shews that the Lord gives a just return for deserts, as well to those who do good as to those who do evil as is plain to anyone who considers the whole drift of the chapter. Many further testimonies from the Law and the Prophets could be adduced, but this one seems to suffice, being so clear and evident that there is no room for shuffling. I could add (though it is not needed) that passage of the 62nd Psalm [v. ll]: God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God. Also unto thee, 0 Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work. But your sectaries hear only one thing, namely mercy towards the good and those who are to be saved, who (they say) do not by any work merit the reward of life [D] everlasting, declaring that life everlasting is given purely freely, without any respect being had of works nor any regard of merit except that of Christ alone. From this the further consequence is that the principle of distributive justice has no place in the judgement of God repaying according to merit, except as regards the wicked, whom God justly judges and punishes according to their bad deserts. On this principle the words of the prophet, Thou renderest to every man according to his work, would have to be understood as applying to evil works only: yet the Apostle applies it to both in Romans 2 [v.6] and in II Corinthians 5 [v.10] and I Titus 5 [II Tim. 4,8], where of himself and of others looking for the coming of the Lord he says: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness &c. Likewise in II Thessalonians 1 [6-7]: Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled &c. If you say God cannot be made a debtor to his own creature, which seems to be proved out of Isaiah and Paul in Romans c.11 [v.35]: Or who hath first given to him, [188 r.] and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him are all things, the creature cannot have just ground of complaint against God if God does not pay him a reward for his good works. I admit that God is debtor to no one but himself, even in those things which he has promised and sworn, signifying the immutability of his ordinance, not of his creature, but he would do injury to himself if he did not keep his promises: yet from this it does not follow that the creature deserves nothing before God. I speak of the creature freely justified, raised by God's gift above the power and virtue of nature, and (in Peter's words [II Peter 1,4]) partakers of the divine nature, and as St John the Evangelist says [ 1,12], to whom gave he power to become the sons of God. For this is part of the reasoning of the divine wisdom, by which it pleased God so to order things that, to whom he gave freely these precious gifts, to those same for their good works going before out of grace and free will he gave payment and reward: and this ordinance he made known to us in Holy Writ through the Prophets, the Apostles, and his only begotten Son. Who is there who will ask God why he did so? Who will be his adviser and say that God ought to have decided not this way, but some other way? Are not God's promises and declarations and oaths clear and open, in which life, glory, and a crown are promised to one who does this or that, or because he does this or that? A like answer may be made to your objection that our work is not useful to God, but is useful to us or to our neighbour; therefore by our good work we do not deserve from God a prize, reward, or crown. This is not a valid inference, because God appointed this law not seeking his or our advantage, but only his own glory; and when we by good works aim at his glory, we are in concord with the will of God, and we earn a prize and reward, which God will bestow not simply according to his goodness, liberality, magnificence, and compassion, but also according to his justice - his justice, I say, not simply in acting as beseems his goodness, but in rendering according to merit good for good and deserts to the deserving, according to the words of the Apocalypse [c.3 v.4]: And they shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy, and Luke 20 [35]: They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection front the dead &c. And Christ says [Matth. 10,37]: He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; from which we may infer contrariwise that he who puts Christ before all else is worthy of Christ. Further let no one falsely declare that we are of no use to God in doing good works; for although he has no need of our good things, and thus we are not useful to God as supplying by our usefulness something that he lacks (of this I spoke above, and it is usefulness in its proper sense), nevertheless good men usefully serve God as ruler of the universe; by their work and ministry God brings his elect to salvation, and thus the usefulness of his elect is reckoned usefulness to him. For the good are chosen vessels, as Scripture says of Paul [Acts 9,15] For he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name &c. Of this more largely in the second book.
The Second Book of Refutations
Against William Tyndale
On the Key to the Understanding of Scripture as Salvation
Not in that respect are you adrift, Tyndale, that you declare faith to be the key to salutary understanding of Scripture, but you err in maintaining this objection or proposition, 'God the Father so grants all things freely through Christ that he gives nothing in respect of any work or because of any work inward or outward,' in such a sense as if there were no merit of man towards God, but that just as God freely and without any cause on man's side predestines, elects, and adopts, so equally freely does he beatify, crown, and reward: which is a meaning alien to catholic faith, pertaining to infidelity, and contrary to scripture which in many places asserts the contrary. Throughout your book you apply [B] all your prolix collections and assertions to the support of this opinion, and you will not allow there to be any difference (so far as concerns freely granting) between justifying faith and crowning glory, except that faith is given first and glory later. In saying this you believe that you are attributing much to the grace of God and to the gifts which God gives to his elect through Christ, when he justifies those who have been called, pouring into their hearts the Holy Ghost; but in fact you are derogating from it in taking away from grace and the aforesaid gifts the force and efficacy of leading the justified man to the end of what is good, just as anyone would derogate from the virtue of a seed if he took from it all power of generation, saying that the fruit was not germinated from the seed but only that the seed went before, the fruit after, contrary to all common sense. For as a man would speak absurdly and go intolerably adrift if, on the ground that God does all things that are in the universe, he should seek to deny all efficacy to all other agents both natural and free, saying that not fire, but God sets straw ablaze, or that a horse does not beget a horse nor a man a man, just so does a man err not only [C] against the Scriptures and the judgement of the wise, but also against the common judgement of the crowd, if he denies that God justly rules and judges this world and especially his rational and intellectual creatures, repaying to good men and bad what is just according to their deserts. For in God mercy should not be so exalted as to derogate from justice, but we must confess a God who is pitying and compassionate and just, so that our faith may be whole and our confession not imperfect or truncated, as yours is when you take away all merit even from the just man, saying that man does not deserve from God glory or eternal life by any works of his own, any more than Paul on his journey to Damascus deserved to be justified by Christ, since (you say) by those works and intentions Paul deserved not justification but eternal damnation, or that he deserved it only in the same way as Adam's sin deserves to be redeemed by Christ's Passion, as Gregory says: 'O blessed fault, which deserved to have such and so great a Redeemer!' There Gregory used the word in a transferred sense, signifying the excellence of God's exceeding charity, but which, notwithstanding the offence, he [D] bestowed greater benefits on the human race than he had formerly given them in their innocency. In order to explain better your opinion on the merit of any good works, you imagine the case that God gave to the blessed Paul from the beginning that perfection which his soul now possesses or will posses after the resurrection, and that God yet willed him to remain in this world and to do what he did in time in his office as teacher and apostle: this case being admitted, you say that Paul with all his good works merited nothing, just as the blessed angels deserve nothing by the service by which they minister to us and under God procure our salvation. From this you conclude that he did not merit anything by his good works at the time when he was in this life. I say nothing of the reasonableness of this case or of whether it could occur: it is enough that from it you declare your opinion on the merit of works, indeed of love and [f.187r.] faith, viz. that you deny the existence of any merit towards God, to which ment God according to justice grant eternal life. Amid all this you say that you do not wish to be contentious or to argue about words. Would God you were sincere in this! For then the dispute would very soon be finished. But let us come to the examples by which you think the matter is clearly demonstrated and that victory crowns your side.
The comparisons that you draw are no true comparisons. First, because the works of that first man who cultivates his field at an agreed price and the works of others who cultivate their fields without any agreement are of one quality and value because of the equality of the agent, of the proximate purpose, of the material and of the form, if, that is, those things happen to be the same. It is otherwise with works by which we are said to earn merit before God, which are not on the same basis with works not earning merit. 'Meritorious works by their very nature, setting aside any agreement or positive ordinance, possess dignity, value, and perfection, which qualities are absent from non-meritorious works:' thus sins by their nature deserve punishment even apart from any positive ordinance, for meritorious works proceed from charity and [B] grace that makes gracious, and by these qualities the soul is perfected and raised above its own natural power. Thus Peter in his second canonical epistle [II Peter 1,4] says: He has given us exceeding great and precious promises, that by these we might be partakers of the Divine nature. This dignity and perfection are lacking to works going before justification and the infusion of grace that makes gracious, for in them man does what in himself, making good use of his natural and gratuitous gifts; for these works do not proceed from the spirit of Christ indwelling and vivifying the mind. Secondly, because all those whom you represent as working in their own fields work only for themselves, not for another; for the aforementioned men are private persons having separate goods, and the good of one is not included in the good of another. In those, however, who are working because of God the case is different, for God is king and ruler of the universe and intends the good of the whole universe, in which is included the good of each man as part thereof, and therefore in God's sight he who works his own salvation and tills the field of his own conscience deserves reward, because [C] by doing this he does something useful to the whole of which he is part. Now the good of the whole, as I have said, is God's intention insofar as he is king, ruler, or legislator. Thus contrariwise punishment in God's eyes is merited by him who corrupts himself by wickedness, since by doing this he harms the whole of which he is part. Aristotle, the heathen philosopher, perceived this by the light of nature, writing in the fifth book of his Ethics [c.11] that those who take their own lives are justly punished by the law, because they do harm to the city of which they are part. Thirdly it is unlike because those who rightly use the gratuitous gifts of God seek in using them and from using them the honour of God and the utility of God's flock, and they labour not in their own vineyard, but in God's, and insofar as they teed sheep which are not their own but God's, and till a vineyard which is not their own but God's. when they impose labour on themselves, they serve not themselves but God, since they belong not to themselves but to Christ by creation and redemption so that, as Paul says in the fifth chapter [v.15] of the second epistle to the Corinthians: They should not henceforth live or die unto themselves but unto him which [D] died for them, and rose again. Thus the utility of their work must be considered as returning not to themselves, but to God, because God rewards the labourer in proportion to his labour, not to its return. God in his retribution takes into account that we have sought his glory, even if you mentally set aside that in this way we have done something useful to the whole universe. Therefore Paul significantly says in the third chapter [v.8] of the first epistle to the Corinthians: Every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
There are other differences or dissimilitudes, but let these suffice. God as Creator and Lord can justly exact from man all things that are possible from his creature and servant, and no man, not even a just or innocent one, let alone a sinner, can justly complain of his Creator and Lord, however much burden he may impose, even if he renders or promises no return for services; nay, even if he should wish to take away life itself, man has nothing to say except what Job said [1,21] when his [187v.] substance and his children were taken from him: The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord. Yet that is not the sole relation between God and man; for God is the Father of men, and on this account God has man not as a servant, but as a son. By this name God appointed between himself and men the rights of a father, which is a name of love, just as 'Lord' is a name of fear. God was not content with that title, but approaching closer to a kind of equality, he is the bridegroom of his church, and with it has established conjugal law. Going even further, and approaching nearer to an equality of life, God so lays aside his majesty that he deigns to act with men in a kind of equality and to contract an alliance; in consequence he appoints with men a kind of civil law. He made pacts with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whom he loved, and he clove unto them, as it is written in Deuteronomy 10. Bearing these things in mind, we can easily find out how a man may be deserving in God's sight. There is no force in the arguments which you adduce, e.g. that which concerns instruments, in which you argue thus: 'Man is an instrument with which God works'; therefore in any good work no praise is due to man any more than to the sling or stone or sword with which David slew the giant. Your conclusion is wrong, [B] because the multiplicity of instruments causes you confusion. There is not just one kind of instrument, but many: a conjoined instrument, as a hand, is one thing, but a separate instrument, as a sword, quite another. Further among separate instruments one may be animate, another inanimate: animate, as a servant, for the servant is an instrument of his master, which the latter uses for action, and a woman is for a man an instrument for generation, as we read in the first book of the Politics. The action of such an instrument is counted to it for praise or rebuke, for punishment or reward. For example, a master commits homicide through his servant; not only is the master punished, but the two fall under the same laws, and rightly so, and the servant's excuse alleging necessity, because he is the instrument of his master, will not be heard. The reason of this is that such a servant is by nature a free man having it in his power to obey or not to obey his master; therefore the instrument's action is counted to him, for blame and punishment if the action be evil, for praise and reward if good. The same must be said of man, although he is an instrument of God in action, because he is a separate, animate, and free instrument, [C] not merely moved, but self-moving by free will; for God so administers the things which he creates that he permits them to perform the motions proper to them. Now the motion proper to a man is that he shall act freely and have it in his power to act or not to act; therefore he is not compelled by necessity to follow the motion of the prime agent, as other instruments are. King Sennacherib, in Isaiah c.10 [v.15], is called by the Lord metaphorically a saw or an axe, yet in the same passage he is reproved by the prophet for not understanding that the reason for his prevailing against Israel is that God was using him to punish the sins of his people. The king was metaphorically a saw, but not so in fact. As it would be portentous if the saw were to rise up against its user, so it is not less absurd for man to rise up against God: yet a man can do so and often does, although unjustly and therefore not with impunity. This you yourself admit in another passage, where you enumerate the various pacts made by God with his creature; for properly there is [D] no pact if there be not free consent on both side. You are mistaken, however, in listing the pact of God with the Devil, for it is not through a pact of God with the Devil that the Devil dominates over sinful man: there is no justice in this domination except on the part of God who permits it. Justly did God permit man to come under the power of the tyrannous seducer, to whom man freely consented, despising God his creator; but God has no pact with the Devil on this matter: the Devil rules over man by injustice and tyranny, and does injury to God when he corrupts man by his instigation. As this divine permission was just against Adam, the first author of the human race, when he sinned, and against his descendants contracting sin from him by their origin, so the Devil acted against this permission when he presumed to inflict death on Christ, who did not belong to that [188 v.] condemned progeny, and thus with justice he lost his power which God's permission had given him over Adam and his posterity. Now when you say that sin is in us because our charity towards God and our neighbour is not as great as the charity of Christ, you are mistaken. It is not promised to us that we shall be equal to Christ, but that we shall be conforming to him; for to him is given the Spirit not according to measure, but to us according to measure: we receive from his fullness; we do not receive that fullness. No one therefore may aspire to equality with the charity of Christ, which from the moment of his conception was complete and neither can nor could be increased. It should not therefore be counted to us for sin that our charity is less than the charity of Christ, since it neither can be nor ought to be equally great. But having mentioned Christ's charity, you were able to satisfy your own sophistical reasoning. For when you declare, as you ought, that Christ was deserving, it necessarily follows that the Apostle Paul, if from the moment of his conversion he had had in this life as much charity as he will have after the resurrection, would nevertheless still have [B] been deserving. From the example of Christ that other argument of yours is overthrown: 'Man owes to God all that he can perform, therefore he deserves nothing.' Christ our Lord by his human nature owed to God death itself; for the Father had ordained that he should undergo it. Hence the Apostle [Philippians 2,8] praises Christ for having obeyed the Father even unto death. Nevertheless he was deserving by his death: Wherefore (says the Apostle) God also hath highly exalted hint, and given him a name which is above every name. You are mistaken also in saying that concupiscence in holy men is the greatest sin, but it is not accounted to them &c. You are speaking either of habitual concupiscence, which is commonly said to be kindling-wood of sin (but that in the baptized is not a sin, for its guilt is taken away by baptism), or you are speaking if its action or motion: yet not even that is a sin when the rational will resists it, but it is matter for the exercise of virtue. Or if its motion comes by surprise without fully deliberate will, it is only a venial sin: when its motion is fully deliberate, it is mortal sin and a transgression of the command, Thou shalt not covet... [Exodus 20,17] - a transgression such as is not [C] in the holy, in whom sin does not reign so that they obey its promptings of lust: as the Wise One says, they go not after their lusts [Ecclesisticus 18,30].
Do you ask for a definition of merit? Here it is: merit in general is a voluntary action, either good or bad, of a traveller according to God's ordinance from his goodness or his badness accounted for reward or penalty: 'voluntary', because this implies a moral type of action proceeding from a free will, 'either good or bad', because there are indifferent actions, halfway between good and bad, which as such are not deserving; 'accounted for reward or penalty', because although a good or bad action because of its goodness or badness is accountable for reward or penalty, nevertheless it does not deserve unless it be actually accounted: I add the words 'according to God's ordinance' because a good act does not deserve a reward unless we suppose an ordinance of God as wishing to return a reward for a good work; I say 'a traveller' in order to exclude the good or [D] bad actions of the blessed and the damned, because they are at the end of good and evil and outside the status of deserving. Now deserving is divided into good and evil: evil deserving is spoken of in Genesis 42 [v.21]: Deservedly do we suffer this, for we have sinned against our brother; likewise Hebrews 10 [v.29]: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden underfoot &c. Good deserving is spoken of in Ecclesiasticus 16 [v.15]: All compassion shall make a place for each according to the merit of his works, and Hebrews 13 [v.16]: For with such sacrifices God is well pleased. Yet you say that there is no such thing as good deserving, because if God did not render to the just man his reward or life everlasting, he would be doing him no injustice, nor is God obliged by the just man's good work to reward him; ergo the just man is not deserving in the sight of God. The blessed Doctors grant the antecedent, but ther deny the consequent, saying that it suffices for deserving that there be worthiness in the agent, proportion in the action, and in God a preceding ordinance. They grant that God is not under obligation to his creature, even from a promise; for if [188 v.] God did not render what he had promised, he would be doing injury not to his creature, but to himself. But to annihilate or not to reward the well deserving is repugnant to his goodness, just as it is repugnant to his justice and goodness to leave sins unpunished; for otherwise by sparing the wicked he would not be a reprover of sin, and by denying reward to the just he would not be an approver of good. Hence, just as the Apostle says [II Tim. 2,13]. He abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself - that is to say, cannot deny the fulfilment of his promises, so we also can say that he is good and just and cannot deny himself, i.e withhold himself from maintaining due order in his universe, not leaving good work without reward nor sin without punishment. But just as by not discharging his promises he would not be injuring any man, but would be unfaithful and untrue, so by not keeping due order in his universe he would not be injuring anyone, but he would simply be neither just nor good. But you say that this is a good argument: 'Life everlasting is granted to the just out of grace and because of grace; therefore not out of works, for what is given out of grace is not owed, and what is given out of works is owed. Now it is impossible for the same thing to be owed and not owed to the same person by the same person, for thus speaks the Apostle in Romans c.4 [v.4] and c. 11l [v.6] and Ephesians c.2 [v.8-9]'. This argument [B] would be convincing if we said that work which is meritorious is not a gratuitous gift of God, or if we said that there was value in the work simply because it proceeds from us, and not for this reason principally, that it proceeds from the grace of God and from charity. This is what Paul intends when he says [Ephesians 2,8]: It is the gift of God, lest any man should boast, i.e. as if this were in him of himself, as he says elsewhere [I Cor. 4,7]: What hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? Here he does not simply forbid us to glory in God's gift which we have accepted, since he says in another passage [I Cor. 1,31], He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord, but he forbids us to glory in God's gift as if it were not a gift, but a man's own, i.e. existing in himself of himself, which is illicit and pertains to pride. Hence the saints regard their own merits not otherwise than as God's gifts freely given, ascribing to the divine goodness whatever they have of goodness and worth. Now in the same work God, when rewarding it in his capacity as a just judge, considers that it was done freely, voluntarily, with pleasure, with love, and without asking, that it was in the doer's power to follow or not to follow, to work [C] or not to work, to use or not to use the gifts of God, and most especially that man in his work did not seek his own glory, but that of God; that he did not work for himself, seeking what was useful to him, but for many, that they should be saved: on this basis God judges him just and to be crowned. Both these points can be seen in what is said by the just judge and in return by the just in Matthew c.25 [vv.34-40] - I refrain from quoting for the sake of brevity.
From all this it will appear to one who considers it well that everything that you say, Tyndale, against hypocrites and those who place their confidence in their works is truly said, but it is beside the point, for the holy travellers who are rich in merits do not make flesh their arm, nor does their heart depart from the Lord, but they have trust in the Lord; for the Holy Ghost teaches them to know what things God has granted them, and among these they know that they were created in good works that they should walk in them, and that by so walking they should come to the crown of immarcescible glory promised to those who strive lawfully. Nor does it tend against the notion of desert that God's love towards the predestined and elect, by which he first loved us, is eternal; for as from all eternity he preordained and proposed to give life everlasting to Peter and Paul or to any other, so from all eternity did he preordain and provide the means of coming to that life. In order to understand this more easily, reflect that under the notion of predestination three things in ordered relation are signified: the first is the eternal purpose of having mercy; the second is the temporal bestowal of grace or of the freely-given gift by which the predestined is justified; the third is the bestowal of glory everlasting. Of these three the first is without cause from our side, for it is a purpose purely of the divine goodness and of God's pure goodwill. The second also has no cause from our side because, although in adults when they are justified the free will regularly concurs and the experience is not purely passive (as in the words, He who created thee without thee will not justify thee without thee and in the words [189r.] of the prophet [Zech. 1,3], Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you, and in the passage of James [4,8], Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you), nevertheless nothing goes before as deserving of the gift freely given by which the impious man is justified, but it is freely instilled into the mind, and by this gift sin is dismissed and the debt of eternal death is cancelled: these things being removed he who was unworthy of temporal life is made to participate in the divine nature and he who was worthy of death both temporal and aeternal is made worthy of life everlasting, and whatever disposition may go before justification is an effect of predestination and of thy grace of God going before all our disposition or will, according to the words of Jeremy in thy last chapter of Lamentations [v.21]: Turn thou us unto thee, O Lord, and we shall be turned. Concerning thy third there is a difference, for between the bestowal of justifying grace and thy dispositions that precede it and the bestowal of glory there intervene inward and outward good works, arising from the justifying gift and from free will through thy individual direction of thy indwelling Holy Ghost; to these glory justly granted. In this sense we must take those words of Paul in Ephesians II [v.10] Created in Jesus Christ in good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk [B] in them, to come by them (that it to say) to the end divinely appointed for u, This may be clearly seen in Paul's case: having been predestined from eternity and in time justified freely, he said of thy works coming between justification and the crown [II Tim. 4,7]: I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the fain: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day. To understand this more fully, consider thy ground for reprobation, which again you will find to by threefold: the eternal purpose of not having mercy, temporal hardening of heart, and eternal damnation. Of thy first there is no cause and no deserving on thy part of the reprobate. Of thy second there is deserving man's part, for he deserved on account of foregoing sin to by abandoned by God and left to himself. Of thy third there is cause and deserving, viz. thy foregoing sin. Hence if it be asked why from all eternity God purposed to have mercy on Peter and none on Juda there is no cause in particular except that God so willed it, and his will cannot by unjust. Likewise if it by asked why in time he bestowed grace on Peter, bestowing a gift by which he left this world just and [C] freed from his sin, while on Judas he did not bestow grace nor award thy gift of justice, but left him in his sin, in which hy persevered to the end, we reply that it pleased God in Peter to shew compassion and in Judas to exercise justice. If you ask why he has pity on this one and not on that one, Paul replies and checks thy boldness of thy enquirer [Rom. 9,20]: Nay but, 0 man, who art thou that repliest against God? But if you ask why God prepared eternal torments for Judas, it truly answered, 'Because of thy sins which God foresaw that hy would commit and en,: his present life in them.' If you ask why from all eternity he prepared for Peter glory everlasting, thy answer is, 'Because he wished in him to shew thy riches of his goodness.' Thus in Peter all things conspire towards grace - first, thy predestination from eternity, second, thy bestowal in time of grace and its gift, third, the good use of that gift and fourth, the consummation of grace or thy reward of glory, but not equally or entire uniformity. For in thy first we have no part; in thy second, although we claim somewhat for ourselves, that is not sufficient [D] for justification; in the third in its relation to the fourth there is worth and account of merit. Thus thy first two pertain to purl grace; not so the latter two, and consequently glory is a reward for good works; for although good works pertain to grace, they do not exclude our cooperation, on account of which grace itself leaves room for merit and does not exclude account of merit.
Thus far I have said more than enough about grace and merit, and if you apply your mind to it, you will plainly see that all that you amass at length against thy merit of works is of no effect except to lead you to a quite absurd conclusion, which I will quote verbatim so that any reader may see its absurdity, even if you yourself close your eyes (I hope you will not), which is the mark of an obstinate heart. 'Works', you say, 'are thy last things that are required in thy Law, and they do not fulfil the Law before God. In works we are always sinning, and our thoughts are unclean. The charity which would fulfil the Law is colder than ice amongst us; we live therefore by faith as long as we are [189v.] in the flesh, and by faith we conquer the world, for this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith (I Jn 5 [v.4]). Our faith is in God through Christ, because his charity by which he overcame all the temptations of the Devil is counted to us. From faith then comes it that the promise is firm to the seed of them that believe that by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight. [Rom. 3,20]' Thus far you recognize your own words. Here you seem to open the secret of your heart, explaining the reason why you count good works for nothing, viz. because good works are the last things required in the Law, for the first thing required in the fulfilment of the Law is good thought, the second good will, the third and last the execution of that good will by work. There are similar degrees also in work forbidden by the Law: the first is evil thought, the second the deliberate willing of evil thought, the third the carrying out in word or deed of the evil will. Now it often happens that by some external impediment the full will, be it good or bad, does not arrive at the execution of the work: in this case the will is counted as the action, as John says in his canonical epistle [I Jn 3,15]: Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. And the Lord in the gospel [B] where he speaks of adulterers [Mat. 5,28] says: Whosoever looketh on a women to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Corresponding examples could be given of things good. Therefore you are not wrong in saying that works are the last things required in the law which commands good works. If follows that they do not fulfil the law. That is true as often as they are by themselves and the two foregoing are absent: for it is not enough for the law that a work should be good in its kind, which is relative goodness, and consistently with this a work is simply and absolutely bad whenever the former two requirements are lacking and in fact they are lacking always. You continue: 'In works we are always sinning, and our thoughts are unclean.' See, at once the first requisite for good work is lacking, namely good thought, for an unclean thought is a bad one. You go on: 'The charity which would fulfil the law &c.' Here again we are missing the second requisite for a good work, namely good will; for charity is good will, or the cause of good will, and if it were present, it would fulfil the law, according to Paul's words in Romans 13 [v.8]: He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law; and in the gospel [Matt. 22,40]: On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. But [C] you are not speaking of that charity, for you significantly say 'would fulfil', not 'fulfils', and you add that it is colder than ice. To anyone who considers well it is clear that the love which naturally follows the contemplation of God's goodness and a consideration of God's gifts and promises is not that charity which is the end of instruction, the bond of perfection, the sum of the law and the prophets, but is a kind of love which arises naturally towards benefactors, which is found in the heathen and in publicans who love those who love them, as we read in Matthew c.5 [v.46]. Such charity towards God is rightly said to be colder than ice when compared with true charity, which the Holy Ghost pours into the hearts of the faithful where he deigns to dwell, which alone fulfils the law. You go on: 'We live therefore by faith while we are in the flesh, and by faith we conquer the world: for this is the victory which overcometh the world [I Jn 5]'. What do I hear? A dead faith. which neither works nor lives, conquers the world? Faith which does not work through love? Charity [D] which does not suffice for the fulfilment of the law does not save us from the power of the Devil, nor is it greater than the world; for all the transgressors of the law are under the law and will be judged by the law, and are under malediction. It not enough to say, as you say, that Christ's charity is counted to us, and that to believe this is the faith that saves. These are your words: 'Faith in God through Christ, because his charity, by which he overcame all the temptations of the Devil is counted to us. Consider, I beseech you, Tyndale, into what absurdities you have fallen since you left the beaten track and went beyond the limits set by the Fathers.
For what could be more absurd than to say that a man is saved without charity of his own, and that the personal charity of Christ is counted to men not having the Holy Ghost and their own gift of charity? This plainly contradicts Paul (I Cor. 13 [v. I]), where he says: Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, &c.,' where he express [190r.] says that all the other gifts of the spirit avail nothing without charity, can contrariwise that all the other qualities profit him who has charity. Also John the Apostle [v.14]: We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethen He that loveth not abideth in death. From this it is clear that each man is saved by h, own love, and although he does not have this love from himself, still he has it in himse Romans 5 [v.3]: We glory in tribulations also, knowing that tribulation worketh patience, and patience experience, and experience hope. And hope maketh not ashamed, because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us. There is one charity of God by which God loves us, and another charity of God, which God creates in us, and by which we love God and our neighbour. This charity by the Holy Ghost he infuses, effuses, and diffuses in our hearts. It is not true therefore that Christ charity is counted to us; but Christ's charity makes charity in us, which although unequal to Christ's charity, is of such kind and degree to be sufficient with God's help to fulfil the law. [B] Therefore that faith by which we believe and trust in God through Christ that Christ's charity will be counted to us, to us (I say) who do not have good works, whose thoughts are unclean and whose will is not good because our charity is either nonexistent or so remiss that its remissness is a sin - that faith, I say, is not true and not catholic but feigned; it is not what God revealed to the prophets or the apostles or the church. Read all the creeds and all the explanations of our faith which were made from the beginning down to the present day against the heresies which arose at various times, and you will not find this article: 'I believe that Christ's charity will be counted to me for salvation.' to me, I say, having no charity of my own, or not having as much as is demanded of me by the law of charity written in the law, reaffirmed in the gospel, and explained by the apostles. By all sound doctrine it is clear that he who does not have Christ's spin does not belong to Christ; for he who has not Christ's spirit is not his, and in whom there is not charity, in him does the Holy Ghost not dwell.
Jacob Latomus
Confutation Against William Tyndale
The Third Book
Since at the end of your declaration you say that you have brought forth in good conscience what you think, I believe that you think as you speak. Consequently, if what you say is true, you resent those who in the name of the Roman pontiff and of the Emperor keep you captive and treat you as a malefactor. Now since you ask to hear, or rather read. my opinion on the matter under dispute, I shall comply with your wishes in the hope that in this way I may bring you back from your error to an attachment to the true catholic doctrine. Hence in good conscience I declare what I [B] believe, what I hold, what I have learned in the catholic orthodox church, or the Roman church, if you will allow it. I do not blush for the gospel or for our mother the church, knowing what I have learned and from whom.
Concerning baptism, the gateway to all sacraments, how many and how important are the passages in both Testaments? But all those not withstanding, this sacrament is nowadays being opposed with amazing blindness and obstinate pertinacity.
Concerning confirmation, I hold that it is the second sacrament. That it is admininistered by a bishop and by the laying on of hands is found in Acts 4 [Acts 8,14-17].
Concerning the eucharist it is superfluous to cite Scripture, since the texts are so numerous and so clear that Luther himself, when trying to overthrow this sacrament, confesses [f.194r.] that he could not defeat Scripture.
Concerning the fourth sacrament of penitence we have not only a tradition handed down, but figures and examples and express passages of Scripture both in the Old and the New Testament. The minister of this sacrament is the priest; its material is the sinner, baptized and backslidden from the sanctity of baptism, who by true contrition and sincere confession has come to absolution, by which absolution the sacrament is completed. For this purpose were the keys committed to Peter and in his person to the whole priestly order, to whom the words are addressed in Matth. 16 [v.19]: I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven &c. To this we must refer the passage of John 20 [v.22]: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit &c.
Concerning extreme unction, the sixth sacrament, there is a passage in the canonical epistle of James in the last chapter [v.14], beginning: Is there any sick among you?
Concerning marriage, the seventh and last sacrament of the church, there is a text in Matthew c.19 [v.6]: What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder; likewise in Mark [10,12] and Luke [20,34?] and Ephesians [5,31]. This is a great sacrament both in Christ and in the church, of which Augustine says: 'This sacrament is a little one in the individuals who are united, but a great one in Christ and in the church.'
No comments:
Post a Comment